Post by: bobcat on February 02, 2011, 01:36:56 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
February 2, 2011
Media Contacts:
Margaret Ainscough, WDFW, Public Affairs Director, 360-902-2408
Virginia Painter, Washington State Parks, 360-902-8562
Bryan Flint, DNR Communications and Outreach Director, 360-902-1023, bryan.flint@dnr.wa.gov
Legislation aims to maintain recreation access on state lands
Three agencies work together to offer single, vehicle access permit
OLYMPIA - The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and the state departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) today announced they are co-requesting legislation that will reform state land management and maintain public access to state recreation lands.
SB 5622 ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5622 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5622) ) addresses the growing demand for recreation opportunities and the impacts of recreation on natural resources and wildlife by developing a reliable source of funding and improving law enforcement on state lands managed by the agencies. All three agencies have seen sharp declines in their budgets to provide adequate maintenance, improvements, and enforcement for recreation. The Governor's proposed budget removed state General Fund support for recreation on state lands in favor of a user-supported funding approach.
"As lawmakers discuss the most drastic budget cuts in state history, we need to align our revenues with our expectations about our quality of life," said State Senator Kevin Ranker (D-40th) ( http://www.sdc.wa.gov/senators/ranker/ (http://www.sdc.wa.gov/senators/ranker/) ), the prime sponsor of the bill, said. "We need to talk about not just how much our outdoor recreation services cost, but also about how much it costs to lose them. Without this legislation, we will witness widespread closure of state parks and other public facilities. I am grateful for the leadership provided by Parks, DNR, and WDFW on this critical issue."
A companion bill, HB 1796 ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1796&year=2011 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1796&year=2011) ), has been introduced in the House by Rep. Kevin Van De Wege (D-24th). One of the key components of the bill is the annual $30 pass that will enable the public to visit state lands managed by all three agencies with just a single pass.
"With State Parks moving off General Fund tax support, we need a new way to fund recreation, and a user-pay model seems to be the fairest-those who use parks pay for them" said State Parks Director Don Hoch. "Working together with all three agencies that offer recreation on state lands is a great value for citizens. The public doesn't have to worry about whether they are on lands managed by State Parks, WDFW, or DNR. One permit gets them access."
"State general revenues are no longer a stable source of funding for outdoor recreation on state lands," said WDFW Director Phil Anderson. "This proposal will bring a greater degree of stability to state land maintenance and operation, and will ensure the public's ability to access state lands and waterways for outdoor recreation. We're eager to work with legislators and our fellow natural resource agencies to improve the legislation as we seek sustainable funding for state lands."
"DNR plays a significant role in providing recreation opportunities on state trust lands," said Bryan Flint, DNR's Communications and Outreach Director. "Places such as Mount Si, Tahuya State Forest, and Lake Spokane are very popular recreation areas that we manage."
The bill, as introduced:
Creates an annual, singular pass -called the "Discover Pass"-that will enable the public to visit lands managed by Parks, WDFW, and DNR. The pass will cost $30 per year per vehicle or $10 for day use.
Improves public safety , by giving law enforcement officers from each agency the authority to issue natural resource infractions on land managed by any of the agencies.
Provides a free annual pass to volunteers who donate 40 hours of their time working on volunteer projects sanctioned by the agencies.
Aligns DNR's recreational immunity with that of the other state agencies.
Specifies how each agency must spend the revenue generated by the Discover Pass.
Revenue from the sales of the pass will be split among the three agencies in the following manner: DNR and WDFW will each receive 7.5 percent and State Parks will receive 85 percent. Both DNR and WDFW would receive an estimated $5.5 million per biennium and State Parks would receive $61 million. Revenues in excess of $71 million would be distributed evenly among the agencies. The pass proceeds would partially offset reductions in state General Fund support to all three agencies.
Recreation on Washington state lands
State lands managed by DNR, State Parks, and WDFW provide millions of acres of recreation opportunities for citizens of the state and for the millions for visitors who come to Washington to enjoy and experience its exceptional outdoor places.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 02, 2011, 01:38:17 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 02, 2011, 05:05:37 PM
Would that be like they "check" boat launches and actually ticket? yea, right.
Post by: bearpaw on February 02, 2011, 05:39:01 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 02, 2011, 06:59:19 PM
I take three different vehicles, plus two different types of trailering toys....
How much of my money do they want?
How about giving me a freaking refund for already funding all the boat launches that people swim from each year? How about a refund for already funding enforcement for the last 40 years???
Why haven't they put a fee on hikers and brush pickers and bird watchers already? How about just licensing those folks like they already license me to hunt!!!??? Now they want to double up on hunters. WE ALREADY CONTRIBUTE A BUTTLOAD OF MONEY TO THE STATE!!!!!!! GO GET THE MONEY FROM OTHER USERS FIRST BEFORE YOU STICK IT TO THE HUNTERS AGAIN!!!!!!!!
:hunter: NEW FEES FOR HUNTERS :pee:
Post by: bobcat on February 02, 2011, 07:12:27 PM
I was in favor of something like this but I thought they would include the pass with the purchase of a hunting or fishing license. :dunno:
Post by: ICEMAN on February 02, 2011, 07:15:51 PM
Who do ya trust? I don't trust the legislators...not one bit.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 07:23:52 PM
Post by: jager on February 02, 2011, 07:25:57 PM
Where do they come up with this crap?
Sent "opinion" yesterday.
Post by: videoman on February 02, 2011, 07:48:20 PM
Post by: mulehunter on February 02, 2011, 07:49:53 PM
Mulehunter >:(
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 07:50:34 PM
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on February 02, 2011, 07:54:22 PM
:bash:
Post by: raekmike on February 02, 2011, 07:54:54 PM
there's no money hire wardens anyway....so who the hell would write the tickets?
Oh wait.. maybe they will use the money to hire wardens.. there goes the money raised and we are back at square one...
Do other states just laugh at us or what? :dunno:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 07:56:31 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:01:27 PM
bigtex, where are you ?
HAHA just got on
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:02:17 PM
Doesn't our hunting gizmo we hang on our mirrors cover the hunters? We're paying for it in our licenses, aren't we ?
This pass would replace the "hunting gizmo"/WDFW Access Decal that has been required since the late 90's on WDFW lands.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:04:05 PM
Oh wait.. maybe they will use the money to hire wardens.. there goes the money raised and we are back at square one...
When this proposal came out about a month ago (it just became official today) it listed what this money would help fund. Part of it are enforcement efforts for WDFW, DNR and Parks.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:05:15 PM
This is a joke. They have already stated that they will not check everyone, but that you "could" be checked.
Would that be like they "check" boat launches and actually ticket? yea, right.
Actually one of the most common tickets for WDFW Officers are for vehicles that do not have the WDFW Vehicle Use Permit which is currently required on WDFW lands.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 08:06:18 PM
Doesn't our hunting gizmo we hang on our mirrors cover the hunters? We're paying for it in our licenses, aren't we ?
This pass would replace the "hunting gizmo"/WDFW Access Decal that has been required since the late 90's on WDFW lands.
Gotta keep everybody on their toes. So us hunters might not be paying $30 besides our regular license fees ?
Post by: jager on February 02, 2011, 08:12:57 PM
It looks like they are trying to combine WDFW, DNR and Parks regardless.
Tex, do you support or oppose...and why? If you don't mind.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:14:34 PM
Doesn't our hunting gizmo we hang on our mirrors cover the hunters? We're paying for it in our licenses, aren't we ?
This pass would replace the "hunting gizmo"/WDFW Access Decal that has been required since the late 90's on WDFW lands.
Gotta keep everybody on their toes. So us hunters might not be paying $30 besides our regular license fees ?
No you would have to pay your fishing and hunting license fees hen if you want to go on WDFW, DNR, Park lands you would have to pay the $30. It is kind of like how you have to pay at certain USFS trailheads. So essentially license fees + Discover Pass. If you aren't going to be on WDFW, DNR, Park lands you don't have to pay the $30.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 08:22:56 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:24:26 PM
Tex, do you support or oppose...and why? If you don't mind.
Well, I will say this. I have always thought it was weird you had to pay an access pass on WDFW lands and not on DNR lands. It is not like there is some significant difference in the makeup of DNR land VS WDFW land. Even Parks has had some fees (camping, launching boats). Personally I have no problem with the whole paying to play mentality. What I do have a problem with is moving Parks off the general fund. This will mean Parks will essentially be funded by this fee, with a couple other smaller accounts added in. So essentially if Parks is not getting enough money, they will seek an increase in the pass. And if a fee doesn't happen then more parks will close or facilities will become ineffecient. I do think there should be some type of fee for DNR, WDFW, and Parks. But I don't think any agency should base it's budget solely off of this fee.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Lands that are marked ? We have WDFW,DNR lands by our cabin that has easement roads through it to get to our cabin. So, if I ride my ATV on those easement roads, do I pay ?
Unless there is something in your easement that would say you didn't have to follow these regs then you would have to pay.
Post by: raekmike on February 02, 2011, 08:26:20 PM
Lands that are marked ? We have WDFW,DNR lands by our cabin that has easement roads through it to get to our cabin. So, if I ride my ATV on those easement roads, do I pay ?
there is no way they could make you pay.....it's an easement
Post by: jager on February 02, 2011, 08:29:54 PM
Quote
there is no way they could make you pay.....it's an easement
HA HA....Right!
I don't feel that hunters and fisherman should be "supporting" state parks. I don't have a problem of pay to play but do we not pay enough?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 08:30:31 PM
Lands that are marked ? We have WDFW,DNR lands by our cabin that has easement roads through it to get to our cabin. So, if I ride my ATV on those easement roads, do I pay ?
there is no way they could make you pay.....it's an easement
Don't forget who's trying to get more money from us, starts with a D and ends with an S . :)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 08:35:09 PM
Lands that are marked ? We have WDFW,DNR lands by our cabin that has easement roads through it to get to our cabin. So, if I ride my ATV on those easement roads, do I pay ?
Unless there is something in your easement that would say you didn't have to follow these regs then you would have to pay.
Our easement was written well before any of this came up. Years and years ago. Hmm !
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:39:40 PM
Lands that are marked ? We have WDFW,DNR lands by our cabin that has easement roads through it to get to our cabin. So, if I ride my ATV on those easement roads, do I pay ?
Unless there is something in your easement that would say you didn't have to follow these regs then you would have to pay.
Our easement was written well before any of this came up. Years and years ago. Hmm !
Going to be something your going to have to take up with the legal people of DNR and WDFW. Or the AG's Natural Resource people
Post by: bobcat on February 02, 2011, 08:40:01 PM
You guys who are so against this fee- what would you propose the state should do in order to maintain the services they are now providing? At least with something like this, EVERYBODY pays, not just people with a hunting and/or fishing license. If you ride a mountain bike, hike, shoot guns, pick flowers, bird watch, photograph wildlife, etc. on state lands, you will now have to pay a fee. I like the idea that non-hunters will have to pay their share.
Post by: bobcat on February 02, 2011, 08:41:16 PM
Lands that are marked ? We have WDFW,DNR lands by our cabin that has easement roads through it to get to our cabin. So, if I ride my ATV on those easement roads, do I pay ?
Unless there is something in your easement that would say you didn't have to follow these regs then you would have to pay.
Our easement was written well before any of this came up. Years and years ago. Hmm !
If you're just driving a road to get to your cabin, I don't think you'd need the pass for that. But don't you ever recreate on state lands?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 08:45:19 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 08:50:58 PM
I don't think this is a Democrat/Republican issue. It's just a matter of trying to figure out a way to pay for services the state provides. They don't have the money in the budget to cover it right now, so they have to come up with it somehow. Or, shut down all state parks and any type of maintenance that is provided on WDFW and DNR lands.
You guys who are so against this fee- what would you propose the state should do in order to maintain the services they are now providing? At least with something like this, EVERYBODY pays, not just people with a hunting and/or fishing license. If you ride a mountain bike, hike, shoot guns, pick flowers, bird watch, photograph wildlife, etc. on state lands, you will now have to pay a fee. I like the idea that non-hunters will have to pay their share.
:yeah:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 02, 2011, 08:58:12 PM
Post by: raekmike on February 02, 2011, 09:08:56 PM
It should be "inclusive in the license fee which we already pay"
If you don't have a hunting or fishing license than i could see charging a $30 fee to be out there doing other things like birdwatching, hiking, mountainbiking.....etc
really seems like their gonna try "double dipping" on us sportsman!.... :twocents:
Post by: ICEMAN on February 02, 2011, 09:13:23 PM
Definately going to be a pay to play type of thing
Vehicle licensing fee.
Hunting licensing fee.
State Hunting permits/tags
Federal migratory bird stamp.
Boat licensing fee.
Snow park permit.
National Forest Pass.
Gas Tax.
I already pay to play.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 02, 2011, 09:13:51 PM
Start charging the greenies...they bitch about everything !!
Post by: HornHoarder on February 02, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 09:27:50 PM
I cant hunt in state parks, so why should my money support them?
Your money is already supporting them. Your tax money that goes to the state goes into the general fund which State Parks gets funding from.
Post by: jager on February 02, 2011, 09:34:01 PM
Where has the money come from for all these years to maintain these lands? (DNR)
Back to the pay to play....Reinlist the 5 fee at the parks. I had no problem paying to launch or whatever.
I already pay to use WDFW lands which I may use once every couple of years and that's fine.
Take the hunters out of the equation, we already pay. And we pay for a lot. We keep getting bent over time after time.
You can't hunt in the state parks so why should a huge percentage of my "hunting fees" go to support them.
Quote
Definately going to be a pay to play type of thing
Vehicle licensing fee.
Hunting licensing fee.
State Hunting permits/tags
Federal migratory bird stamp.
Boat licensing fee.
Snow park permit.
National Forest Pass.
Gas Tax.
I already pay to play.
:yeah:
It's not up to me to bail out everyone that whines about their budget or lack thereof
Raising fees and adding taxes isn't the answer, the individual departments need to figure these things out.
This Governor and her minions are terrible for this state...
What was the 5 bucks that the state park just scammed tons of people out of? It was on some form you had to opt out of?
Charge all the folks that are bringing in the big bucks for this state............the wildlife watchers.
If I was in business and couldn't manage my finances I'd be s*** out of luck.
Post by: jager on February 02, 2011, 09:38:09 PM
Quote
I cant hunt in state parks, so why should my money support them?
Your money is already supporting them. Your tax money that goes to the state goes into the general fund which State Parks gets funding from.
Yea...so we should pay even more????????
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 09:48:23 PM
QuoteI cant hunt in state parks, so why should my money support them?
Your money is already supporting them. Your tax money that goes to the state goes into the general fund which State Parks gets funding from.
Yea...so we should pay even more????????
Under this proposal State Parks would no longer be funded by the general fund, only thru funds received from this pass.
Post by: raekmike on February 02, 2011, 09:50:55 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 09:52:56 PM
Don't know how it is on the west side but here on the east side when I'm on public lands I don't really see any recreators other than hunters..... sooooo.
Where has the money come from for all these years to maintain these lands? (DNR)
Back to the pay to play....Reinlist the 5 fee at the parks. I had no problem paying to launch or whatever.
I already pay to use WDFW lands which I may use once every couple of years and that's fine.
Take the hunters out of the equation, we already pay. And we pay for a lot. We keep getting bent over time after time.
You can't hunt in the state parks so why should a huge percentage of my "hunting fees" go to support them.QuoteDefinately going to be a pay to play type of thing
Vehicle licensing fee.
Hunting licensing fee.
State Hunting permits/tags
Federal migratory bird stamp.
Boat licensing fee.
Snow park permit.
National Forest Pass.
Gas Tax.
I already pay to play.
:yeah:
It's not up to me to bail out everyone that whines about their budget or lack thereof
Raising fees and adding taxes isn't the answer, the individual departments need to figure these things out.
This Governor and her minions are terrible for this state...
What was the 5 bucks that the state park just scammed tons of people out of? It was on some form you had to opt out of?
Charge all the folks that are bringing in the big bucks for this state............the wildlife watchers.
If I was in business and couldn't manage my finances I'd be s*** out of luck.
I actually disagree with you/ There are a ton of other people recreating on WDFW lands on the eastside outside of hunting seasons. It's one of the reasons why many WDFW Officers on the eastside are having to increase their patrols of agency land. The big issue lately is ATV riders and people camping.
These aren't "hunting fees". They are fees to use agency lands. You can still hunt without them, just hunt on private land, or federal land.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 09:53:22 PM
so what exactly is capital forest? does it apply to there?
DNR and yes it would apply there.
Post by: raekmike on February 02, 2011, 09:59:11 PM
if it's not too much trouble can you break down what my hunting fee's pay for?
Not being a smart ass just unclear on the big picture here..
I "assumed" that my fee's weren't just covering the hunting season but helped to fund for the whole year... :dunno:
Post by: jager on February 02, 2011, 10:02:07 PM
Quote
QuoteI cant hunt in state parks, so why should my money support them?
Your money is already supporting them. Your tax money that goes to the state goes into the general fund which State Parks gets funding from.
Yea...so we should pay even more????????
Under this proposal State Parks would no longer be funded by the general fund, only thru funds received from this pass.
Guess I should re-read, it was a lot to absorb....
I'm sill not for paying more because our "leaders" can't get their s*** together.
Quote
I actually disagree with you/ There are a ton of other people recreating on WDFW lands on the eastside outside of hunting seasons. It's one of the reasons why many WDFW Officers on the eastside are having to increase their patrols of agency land. The big issue lately is ATV riders and people camping.
I was referring to land NOT operated by WDFW...
I am aware that they aren't hunting fees. That is what I do on the land so they are "hunting fees" to me......if I was a bird watcher they'd be bird watching fees. :)
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 10:03:30 PM
tex,
if it's not too much trouble can you break down what my hunting fee's pay for?
Not being a smart ass just unclear on the big picture here..
I "assumed" that my fee's weren't just covering the hunting season but helped to fund for the whole year... :dunno:
Well if you mean your hunting license fees it applies for the entire department. The license fees go into the wildlife fund. The wildlife fund funds just about every WDFW division/operation there is. Also, the wildlife fund is not just wildlife, it quite honestly should be called the fish and wildlife fund because it funds both fish and wildlife programs not just wildlife related programs.
Post by: Bob33 on February 02, 2011, 10:05:19 PM
It sure looks that way to me:
SB 5622:
Ranker D
Swecker R
Fraser D
Hargrove D
White D
Regala D
Shin D
Chase D
Kline D
Conway D
Companion House Bill 1796
Van De Wege D
Takko D
Upthegrove D
Finn D
Seaquist D
Sullivan D
Liias D
Jacks D
McCoy D
Moscoso D
Hudgins D
Hunt D
Reykdal D
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 10:09:45 PM
[quote I don't think this is a Democrat/Republican issue.It sure looks that way to me:
SB 5622:
Ranker D
Swecker R
Fraser D
Hargrove D
White D
Regala D
Shin D
Chase D
Kline D
Conway D
Companion House Bill 1796
Van De Wege D
Takko D
Upthegrove D
Finn D
Seaquist D
Sullivan D
Liias D
Jacks D
McCoy D
Moscoso D
Hudgins D
Hunt D
Reykdal D
[/quote]
You also need to remember that you need to have some Democrat support in this state in order for a bill to pass. The bill that would increase hunting and fishing license fees has bi-partisan support. If your an agency leader in this state and want a law changed what political party will have a better chance in passing a bill??? I'm pretty sure I don't have to answer that.
Post by: Bob33 on February 02, 2011, 10:12:16 PM
Post by: raekmike on February 02, 2011, 10:12:44 PM
I'm currently funding the whole, lets call it "outdoor program" twice as much as someone who mountainbikes or birdwatches..
So these people will now have to pay one fee........
And I will now end up paying 3 fee's
Does anyone get what I am saying? This really seems like complete horse :crap: for someone in my position :dunno:
Post by: MikeWalking on February 02, 2011, 10:14:04 PM
The pass will cost $30 per year per vehicle or $10 for day use...
Who do ya trust? I don't trust the legislators...not one bit.
Just like the current Forest Service pass I imagine it's a hang tag you can use in more than one car
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 10:14:10 PM
I would not call this bi-partisan support. One Republican sponsor out of about 20?
I am talking about the bill that would increase the hunting and fishing licenses, not the bill that would create DNR/WDFW/Parks pass. Two different bills.
Post by: bobcat on February 02, 2011, 10:16:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 02, 2011, 10:17:26 PM
The pass will cost $30 per year per vehicle or $10 for day use...
Who do ya trust? I don't trust the legislators...not one bit.
Just like the current Forest Service pass I imagine it's a hang tag you can use in more than one car
Yes that's what I'm assuming too.
Post by: Bob33 on February 02, 2011, 10:17:26 PM
OK thanks. I was referring to the $30 access permit. WDFW gets $2.25 of the $30. I don't think that's fair to hunters.I would not call this bi-partisan support. One Republican sponsor out of about 20?
I am talking about the bill that would increase the hunting and fishing licenses, not the bill that would create DNR/WDFW/Parks pass. Two different bills.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 10:17:33 PM
so i currently buy a the combo hunting license and the combo fishing license and now i'll have to pay a 3rd time.
I'm currently funding the whole, lets call it "outdoor program" twice as much as someone who mountainbikes or birdwatches..
So these people will now have to pay one fee........
And I will now end up paying 3 fee's
Does anyone get what I am saying? This really seems like complete horse :crap: for someone in my position :dunno:
Well I don't want to sound like the a*s but it's your choice to hunt, fish and go on state lands. If you didn't want to fish then you wouldn't have to pay the fee. And I am in the same position as you, I buy all the combos
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2011, 10:19:29 PM
OK thanks. I was referring to the $30 access permit. WDFW gets $2.25 of the $30. I don't think that's fair to hunters.I would not call this bi-partisan support. One Republican sponsor out of about 20?
I am talking about the bill that would increase the hunting and fishing licenses, not the bill that would create DNR/WDFW/Parks pass. Two different bills.
It's not fair to hunters, fishermen, clammers, crabbers, and so on. And it's one of the things I don't like about the bill. The bill will shift funding from the general fund to essentially only this fee for State Parks, which is the reason why their % is so high.
Post by: raekmike on February 02, 2011, 10:25:05 PM
and when i pull $30 worth of license out it will take it all out of the wdfw fund....
when i pay the new $30 fee they will only get a couple dollars....and parks get the rest....
If this scenario happens all it will do is HURT hunting...... :twocents:
Post by: billythekidrock on February 03, 2011, 05:33:12 AM
You guys who are so against this fee- what would you propose the state should do in order to maintain the services they are now providing? At least with something like this, EVERYBODY pays, not just people with a hunting and/or fishing license. If you ride a mountain bike, hike, shoot guns, pick flowers, bird watch, photograph wildlife, etc. on state lands, you will now have to pay a fee. I like the idea that non-hunters will have to pay their share.
The problem is the nonpaying public that will continue not to pay and not enough enforcement, or lack of commitment to enforce it. If I am paying more then I don't want to be bothered by those that don't.
There is absolutely no way they can enforce this at a manageable level.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 03, 2011, 05:46:09 AM
so what exactly is capital forest? does it apply to there?
DNR and yes it would apply there.
So take this small piece of land as an example. There are about 8 official entrances always open to the public and there are a few more that are opened temporarily for logging and I have found at least a dozen different quad trails coming in off private propert (I am sure there are a lot more than that).
How are they going to enforce this pass?
There are not enough officers (or time) to check people on a regular basis in the CF so the only way they will be able to "enforce" this is through the occasional contacts on the occasion that the officer is in the CF.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2011, 06:31:24 AM
How are they going to enforce this pass?so what exactly is capital forest? does it apply to there?
DNR and yes it would apply there.
There are not enough officers (or time) to check people on a regular basis in the CF so the only way they will be able to "enforce" this is through the occasional contacts on the occasion that the officer is in the CF.
I don't understand the whole "how are they going to enforce? questions. Currently one of the most commonly written tickets by WDFW Officers is not having the Vehicle Use Permit. How would simply changing the permit name change the level of enforcement? It will actually increase enforcement level. Currently only WDFW Officers enforce the permits, you would now have DNR and WDFW Officers enforcing the permits on their land. So how would they enforce it? The same way they have for past 10 years.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 03, 2011, 06:33:18 AM
point taken tex.....unfortunately i'll just be probably dropping some of my licensing to compensate which is what i suspect many others will do and their projections for fund raising will fall substantially short of what they are expecting..
and when i pull $30 worth of license out it will take it all out of the wdfw fund....
when i pay the new $30 fee they will only get a couple dollars....and parks get the rest....
If this scenario happens all it will do is HURT hunting...... :twocents:
I agree and we have had to do that the last two years. My wife and I have state jobs and live within our means with hunting as our primary source of recreation. We don't have crazy cell phones or cable packages. Matter of fact I am writing this on dial up. This year we were not able to apply for all of our usual permits due to the new crappy system. With the increase in gas and power and general cost of living, we gave up fishing (we also gave up going to the movies and going out to dinner). It is not just the fee of the combo license, but everything else that goes with fishing. I still have my gear and may fish more in the future, but something else will have to go.
The price of gas will be up to $4 in a couple months and up to $5 by next year but our wages won't go up at all. Right now I run up into the CF every day to check a couple traps. I am doing it for fun, but it is also theropudic in a way. Now throw in another $30 fee for this pass with an increase in gas? Why would I do it? I could find value in it if the garbage dumpers, methheads and joe blows who won't pay this fee were not in the woods, but I know that won't happen. With dwindling funds, I need to find value in how I spend my money. Recently I am seeing less and less value in my hunting licenses.
If we have to pay for this pass who does the money go to? Not enought of it to F&W. But if I have to buy the pass then I may have to give up the small game or trapping license. How much of that goes to F&W? Which hurts F&W more?
I don't mind paying as long as everyone else is paying their share. What I don't like is restricted access to state lands. We have been paying for them through taxes forever and now they want to "tax" us more. The only one that like this bill are the ones that can afford it and hope it keeps others out of the woods.
What about the youth that are just getting by? I often see young guys spending time in the woods. I would rather see them there then on the streets.
What about the handicapped guy I see that just likes to take his coffee for a drive?
How about those on a fixed income? How is a retired person supposed afford this? I know a few old timers that buy a hunting license every year just so they can sped a few hours in the woods, but now you throw a $30 fee on top?
What ever happened to F&W's "Go Play"?
Maybe it means "Go Play, but not on state lands"? :dunno:
Post by: Ray on February 03, 2011, 06:42:01 AM
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2011, 06:51:25 AM
This isn't any different than so many other ways the state steals from one group to pay for another... I like the basic idea of EVERYONE paying to play but as we see here the Devil is in the details... Parks cost money DNR makes money, WDFW lands don't cost much... Since i mostly use DNR and WDFW land why does it mostly go to parks? Because from history we know that the people visiting parks on a daily basis are unwilling to pay for the use... Its all about the money and most of us suckers are gona pay it...
Post by: SCRUBS on February 03, 2011, 07:03:28 AM
point taken tex.....unfortunately i'll just be probably dropping some of my licensing to compensate which is what i suspect many others will do and their projections for fund raising will fall substantially short of what they are expecting..
and when i pull $30 worth of license out it will take it all out of the wdfw fund....
when i pay the new $30 fee they will only get a couple dollars....and parks get the rest....
If this scenario happens all it will do is HURT hunting...... :twocents:
I agree and we have had to do that the last two years. My wife and I have state jobs and live within our means with hunting as our primary source of recreation. We don't have crazy cell phones or cable packages. Matter of fact I am writing this on dial up. This year we were not able to apply for all of our usual permits due to the new crappy system. With the increase in gas and power and general cost of living, we gave up fishing (we also gave up going to the movies and going out to dinner). It is not just the fee of the combo license, but everything else that goes with fishing. I still have my gear and may fish more in the future, but something else will have to go.
The price of gas will be up to $4 in a couple months and up to $5 by next year but our wages won't go up at all. Right now I run up into the CF every day to check a couple traps. I am doing it for fun, but it is also theropudic in a way. Now throw in another $30 fee for this pass with an increase in gas? Why would I do it? I could find value in it if the garbage dumpers, methheads and joe blows who won't pay this fee were not in the woods, but I know that won't happen. With dwindling funds, I need to find value in how I spend my money. Recently I am seeing less and less value in my hunting licenses.
If we have to pay for this pass who does the money go to? Not enought of it to F&W. But if I have to buy the pass then I may have to give up the small game or trapping license. How much of that goes to F&W? Which hurts F&W more?
I don't mind paying as long as everyone else is paying their share. What I don't like is restricted access to state lands. We have been paying for them through taxes forever and now they want to "tax" us more. The only one that like this bill are the ones that can afford it and hope it keeps others out of the woods.
What about the youth that are just getting by? I often see young guys spending time in the woods. I would rather see them there then on the streets.
What about the handicapped guy I see that just likes to take his coffee for a drive?
How about those on a fixed income? How is a retired person supposed afford this? I know a few old timers that buy a hunting license every year just so they can sped a few hours in the woods, but now you throw a $30 fee on top?
What ever happened to F&W's "Go Play"?
Maybe it means "Go Play, but not on state lands"? :dunno:
Very well said BTKR.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 07:16:04 AM
You guys who are so against this fee- what would you propose the state should do in order to maintain the services they are now providing? At least with something like this, EVERYBODY pays, not just people with a hunting and/or fishing license. If you ride a mountain bike, hike, shoot guns, pick flowers, bird watch, photograph wildlife, etc. on state lands, you will now have to pay a fee. I like the idea that non-hunters will have to pay their share.
The problem is the nonpaying public that will continue not to pay and not enough enforcement, or lack of commitment to enforce it. If I am paying more then I don't want to be bothered by those that don't.
There is absolutely no way they can enforce this at a manageable level.
I'm not sure I like this particular legislation either. I just like the idea of other users paying their share. I'm not sure how well it would be enforced. Not even sure how many people would know it was required to be on state land. I had assumed that if they did come up with an idea for this, that hunters/fishermen would be exempt. The pass should be included with the purchase of a hunting or fishing license.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 03, 2011, 07:18:48 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 07:21:39 AM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 03, 2011, 07:25:14 AM
I don't believe it's $30 for each vehicle. That just wouldn't make sense.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622.pdf)
Page 2 line 26
(2) Cost of the discover pass is thirty dollars per vehicle.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 03, 2011, 07:37:02 AM
This is lame. Yet another tax and yet another parking permit to purchase in order to line some bureacrat's wallet.
Agree completely. Last fee was for sold on improvements, toilets etc. Just go check out your favorite WDFW boat launch. Custodial at best...no improvements to speak of, run down, lack of pride. It's really a shame as that is the first line of advertisement for the Department. Their message....we don't give a crap.
Wildlife areas....for 40 plus years......custodial, no budget lands. WDFW never has taken pride in them. The only attention they get is a redundancy of new planning efforts every 7-10 years. What a joke, just like this new fee. It nothing more than an attempt to fund parks at the expense of hunters and fishermen. Kind of like the $5 fee you didn't know you were paying to support Parks when you renewed your vehicle license, and you had to tell them no to opt out. Otherwise you paid it without knowing.
Again less opportunity for increased fees. Don't they get it....tax people more and they quit doing it....everyone losses....including the Department as revenues go in the toilet even more.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 07:42:54 AM
I don't believe it's $30 for each vehicle. That just wouldn't make sense.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622.pdf)
Page 2 line 26
(2) Cost of the discover pass is thirty dollars per vehicle.
Yes I have read that, but I don't see where it says you can't transfer from one vehicle to another. Just like the current access permit for WDFW lands, you hang it from the rear view mirror in whatever vehicle you are driving that day.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 07:52:54 AM
Quote
Vehicle Use Permit
Do I Need a Vehicle Use Permit?
Anyone entering or using a WDFW improved access facility is required to display a current WDFW Vehicle Use Permit. (See Revised Code of Washington 77.32.380) Access sites are clearly identified areas specifically created for motor vehicle parking. View WDFW Wildlife Areas and Water Access Sites.
Vehicle Use Permits may designate up to two vehicles for use.
Permits must be placed in full view from outside the vehicle. Please have the license plate number(s) of the vehicle written in the space provided on the permit.
Complimentary Vehicle Use Permits are issued to:
The licensee with the first purchase of an annual hunting or annual fishing license (excluding shellfish licenses).
Purchaser of a Watchable Wildlife Decal package.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 03, 2011, 07:55:44 AM
There are park attendants on park sites....why not use the money to have some WDFW person on site watching the parking areas during daylight areas. Sound stupid....perhaps..........but no more stupid than the ridiculous $30 fee in my opinion. At least you would get something for your expenditure. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 07:58:54 AM
Quote
NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. RCW 77.32.380 (Fish and wildlife lands
23 vehicle use permit--Improved access facility--Fee--Youth groups--
24 Display--Transfer between vehicles--Penalty) and 2003 c 317 s 4, 2001
25 c 243 s 1, 2000 c 107 s 271, 1998 c 87 s 1, 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 77, 1991
26 sp.s. c 7 s 12, 1988 c 36 s 52, 1987 c 506 s 90, 1985 c 464 s 11, &
27 1981 c 310 s 15 are each repealed.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 08:05:36 AM
Quote
Sec. 11. RCW 79A.05.160 and 1965 c 8 s 43.51.170 are each amended
2 to read as follows:
3 (1) The members of the ((state parks and recreation)) commission
4 and ((such of)) its designated employees ((as the commission may
5 designate)) shall be vested with police powers to enforce the laws of
6 this state.
7 (2) The director may, under the provisions of section 9 of this
8 act, enter into an agreement allowing employees of the department of
9 natural resources and the department of fish and wildlife to enforce
10 certain civil infractions created under this title.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 03, 2011, 08:32:39 AM
I don't believe it's $30 for each vehicle. That just wouldn't make sense.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622.pdf)
Page 2 line 26
(2) Cost of the discover pass is thirty dollars per vehicle.
Yes I have read that, but I don't see where it says you can't transfer from one vehicle to another. Just like the current access permit for WDFW lands, you hang it from the rear view mirror in whatever vehicle you are driving that day.
Pg 3 line 1
(6) The discover pass must contain space for the vehicle license plate number.
Yes, this bill also repeals RCW 77.32.380 which allows you to transfer the pass between two vehicles. (pg 1 line 5)
The way I read it is 1 vehicle per pass. I can see problems already.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 03, 2011, 08:39:32 AM
I cant hunt in state parks, so why should my money support them?
Your money is already supporting them. Your tax money that goes to the state goes into the general fund which State Parks gets funding from.
Okay then why should we pay MORE to support them? Hunters and anglers should get complementary passes W/O 40 hours of slavery. And this BS. (below) We get 7 1/2% they get 85%
"Improves public safety , by giving law enforcement officers from each agency the authority to issue natural resource infractions on land managed by any of the agencies."
Ah, the PC catch phrase...public safety
Could someone please tell me how THIS improves public safety???
Post by: Ray on February 03, 2011, 08:52:46 AM
As an observation: When the Northwest Forest Pass was being touted as a solution to economic shortfall inside the National Forest they used the example of better enforcement, improved trailheads and that phrase "improved public safety". To this date (it's been about 10 years) there has been zero improved public safety as a result of that Northwest Forest Pass.
I wrote my senator already.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 03, 2011, 09:07:36 AM
DFW and DNR land have always brought in revenue, now Parks?? So now won't it be just great when DFW, DNR, and the parks are one unit :bdid: :puke: Where will 85% of the money go? while the DFW enforcement has become the red headed step child of the WSP?
I read in the bill (house version) where you would get a complementary pass for 40 hours community service.
Now to get money from EVERYONE (Who they now don't) using DFW,DNR land...That would be OK
How far can they go before we rebel??
What I sent to my Reps
The following message was sent to Senator Val Stevens (R), Representative Dan Kristiansen (R) and Representative Kirk Pearson (R) of the 39th district.
TO: Senator Val Stevens
CC: Representative Dan Kristiansen
Representative Kirk Pearson
FROM: James Zielasko
STREET ADDRESS:
Arlington, WA 98223-6729
EMAIL:
PHONE:
BILL: 5622 (Against)
SUBJECT: SB 5622, and HB1796 Need Changes
MESSAGE: I, as many hunters, am against this bill as it stands, whereas those of us who actually have been paying our way (Anglers,Hunters) by putting out our money to use state land for our recreation through our licenses tags and access permits (complementary with licenses). For how long have we been the ONLY ones paying to play and now we will be expected to pay another $30 on top of our already inflated licenses,tags, special permit application, which will come to well over $100.
I don't have a problem with us paying for our use of these lands as we have been. What I do have a problem with is that I haven't used a Washington state park in many years, but 85% of this money I will be forced to pay would go there, while my lands of use will get 15%!
This bill needs to be tweaked to allow for complementary discover passes for those who already spend their hard earned money on DFW licenses, Tags As it is now.
There are too many users of these lands that pay NOTHING,that do much more damage to these lands than sportsmen!
Please tweak Sb5622, and Hb (Kirk,Dan)1796 to allow for complementary passes for sportsmen!
Thank You
Arlington washington 98223
RESPONSE: James has requested a response to this message.
Post by: bearpaw on February 03, 2011, 01:11:41 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 02:24:34 PM
Post by: jager on February 03, 2011, 02:49:37 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 03, 2011, 04:46:30 PM
How are they going to enforce this pass?so what exactly is capital forest? does it apply to there?
DNR and yes it would apply there.
There are not enough officers (or time) to check people on a regular basis in the CF so the only way they will be able to "enforce" this is through the occasional contacts on the occasion that the officer is in the CF.
I don't understand the whole "how are they going to enforce? questions. Currently one of the most commonly written tickets by WDFW Officers is not having the Vehicle Use Permit. How would simply changing the permit name change the level of enforcement? It will actually increase enforcement level. Currently only WDFW Officers enforce the permits, you would now have DNR and WDFW Officers enforcing the permits on their land. So how would they enforce it? The same way they have for past 10 years.
That is my point. I don't see the enforcement of the current use permit. Maybe it is the most common citation, but I don't think they write enough. Enforce the laws and penalties we have. Don't create more.
I feel that these citations will be low on the totem pole as far as enforcement goes when compared to poaching game or timber. Just look at the cell phone laws. Lots of tickets written but yet you see it done all the time. Not enough tickets written in my opinion. They just don't generate enough revenue. Same is will be true with this issue. Not enough revenue (or federal money) to justify the paperwork and tickets for no pass will not be as glamorous when compared drugs or tresspassing.
Right now you have x amount of F&W officers that enforce wildlife (and other laws).
You also have x amount of DNR enforcement that enforce forest practice laws (and other laws?).
If combined you will have F&W enforce wildlife and forest practice laws as well as other laws.
You will also have DNR enforcing forest practice laws and wildlife laws as well as other laws. Basically you put more work on everyones plate.
And that is not even mentioning F&W enforcement going to WSP.
Believe me, if I thought they could enforce it (and it kept yahoos out of the woods) I would support it. I would have to give up something as my budget only allows so much, but I could get on board if I thought it would keep dumpers/homeless/etc. out of the woods.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2011, 06:11:34 PM
Another thing in HB1796 is that non-law enforcement employees of the three agencies would be able to enforce and write tickets for violations of this new law.QuoteSec. 11. RCW 79A.05.160 and 1965 c 8 s 43.51.170 are each amended
2 to read as follows:
3 (1) The members of the ((state parks and recreation)) commission
4 and ((such of)) its designated employees ((as the commission may
5 designate)) shall be vested with police powers to enforce the laws of
6 this state.
7 (2) The director may, under the provisions of section 9 of this
8 act, enter into an agreement allowing employees of the department of
9 natural resources and the department of fish and wildlife to enforce
10 certain civil infractions created under this title.
Thats incorrect Bobcat. That is actually how Parks police powers are written. Parks (and other agencies) will only allow certified law enforcement officers to enforce the laws. Many agencies have RCW'S that are similar but that doesn't mean the agency Bio is out citing people, it justs means the comission can designate officers to enforce laws.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2011, 06:12:24 PM
I'm not sure, but in reading this section, I think this woud do away with the current vehicle use permit:QuoteNEW SECTION. Sec. 23. RCW 77.32.380 (Fish and wildlife lands
23 vehicle use permit--Improved access facility--Fee--Youth groups--
24 Display--Transfer between vehicles--Penalty) and 2003 c 317 s 4, 2001
25 c 243 s 1, 2000 c 107 s 271, 1998 c 87 s 1, 1993 sp.s. c 2 s 77, 1991
26 sp.s. c 7 s 12, 1988 c 36 s 52, 1987 c 506 s 90, 1985 c 464 s 11, &
27 1981 c 310 s 15 are each repealed.
Thats correct, if this passes the WDFW pass would be replaced by the new pass.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2011, 06:22:48 PM
As an observation: When the Northwest Forest Pass was being touted as a solution to economic shortfall inside the National Forest they used the example of better enforcement, improved trailheads and that phrase "improved public safety". To this date (it's been about 10 years) there has been zero improved public safety as a result of that Northwest Forest Pass.
Glad you brought up the Forest Pass. Congress has nothing to do with the forest pass. In all of the federal land management agencies (BLM, NPS, USFS, USFWS, USACE) there is legislation that allows each superintendent/supervisor of each area to set fees for their areas. So if Mt Rainier wanted to charge $50 to access they could, if Olympic wanted $35 they could. There is no congressional oversight or approval like you see with WDFW when they request a license increase from Olympia. Currently there is only one USFS Law Enforcement Officer assigned to every USFS Ranger District in this state, only the Randle District has two officers and Snoqualmie District has two officers, one out of the Enumclaw and North Bend Offices. So you have one USFS LEO to cover every crime/activity in each ranger district. These forest passes are mainly used to fund patrols by non-gun carrying "Forest Protection Officers". FPO's are essentially USFS workers that can write tickets for USFS violations (campgrounds, fire, litter, etc). So the USFS worker emptying the garbage can may have the authority to write you a federal citation. These FPOs are usually the ones writing the parking tickets for no trailhead pass, no sno-park permit or not paying camping fees. This leaves the actual officers to investigate more serious offenses. So it really is hard to tell how much more enforcement there is with the USFS because in reality every USFS worker could cite if they attended the proper training. However there is a big difference between LEO and FPO.
Post by: Ray on February 03, 2011, 06:31:40 PM
In an actual business which is responsible for generating revenue and working within budgetary limitations there are ramifications for not meeting budget goals and requirements.
What you have have essentially described is that the forest pass has created more bureacrats to merely enforce revenue generation. Except now when they retire the taxpayers have to foot the bill for more personell expected to reach retirement.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 07:18:47 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 07:41:37 PM
Quote
Thank you for contacting my office through the legislative hotline concerning SB 5622 concerning recreation access on state lands.
Although it has had a public hearing, SB 5622 is still in committee in the Senate and I have not had an opportunity to review the proposal. I am concerned about the lack of stable funding for our state parks. I do not support the current opt-out program through vehicle license tabs and it is very unlikely I would support an opt-in program for the discover pass, especially without a clear vision of where the funds would go and what they would be used for. At some point, the parks may need to develop funding sources of their own, rather than depending on an opt-in or opt-out program.
I am also concerned about governments need to continually increase fees or establish new fees to fund state programs instead living within its means. I am a firm believer in following the priorities of government and recognizing the economic difficulties our citizens are facing.
I appreciate you taking the time to express your views.
Post by: Ray on February 03, 2011, 07:56:53 PM
Except the Forest Pass is only needed for parking at or in the vicinity of trailheads. If you're just hunting in the National Forest and don't park at a trailhead, you don't need the pass.
Who cares. We're talking about taking a tax based upon the premise that there are no ways to actually cut budgets and keep government agencies within reasonable boundaries or even keep them responsible for their own budgets on an individual basis. The whole idea that they all live together in a happy grab bag pool of money is a problem. The biggest problem is that it does not force each agency to be fiscally responsible. It's a scam and government employees would never cut off their own paycheck so they are less likely to object to it. Let us not forget that the real reason the Democrats want this is because they don't want to cut in other areas which are more likely to result in them losing critical votes.
I believe a true mark of reform would include ways to hold each and every agency responsible for living within a clearly established budget and have a plan to make cuts accordingly when budgets are not met. Most any agency like the DNR should have a way to generate revenue. I bet those trees they cut are not free for all. This is how business works in the real world. When a division in a company doesn't generate enough revenue they come onto the radar for being reduced or even disbanded.
Currently the situation with a big pool of cash, the agencies can play competition politics to get more than their fair share of cash. Even someone else's share whether or not they should.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 08:17:07 PM
Post by: Ray on February 03, 2011, 08:21:53 PM
Quote
there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free.
Maybe they should cut more trees or trim some fat if you ask me.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 03, 2011, 08:46:45 PM
While I'm not sure I agree with all the details of this proposed access pass, I still think user fees are a good idea, and probably necessary if we want to keep all the state parks and state lands open. I would rather see separate user fees for state parks, DNR, and DFW lands. I don't use state parks so I shouldn't have to pay. I use WDFW lands occasionally and my hunting license fees should cover that use. DNR lands I use more than anything else and there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free. I really think DNR should begin charging for the campground use, and trail use. Capital Forest gets a lot of use by motorcyclists and mountain bikers. There's no reason they shouldn't be paying something for that, since DNR spends a lot of money on maintaining trails and campgrounds. I would rather see fees charged for that type of use than for somebody just driving through the forest.ORV tabs cover some of the DNR stuff.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 09:00:55 PM
Quotethere has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free.
Maybe they should cut more trees or trim some fat if you ask me.
Timber sale money does not go for maintenance of recreational trails and campgrounds. The timber sale revenue goes directly to schools. Cut more trees? I'm not sure they can cut at a faster pace than what they've been doing. Have you seen the new clearcuts everywhere on DNR lands? And fat? Maybe there is none. The DNR is only going to get 7 1/2% of this money anyway. I suppose they could eliminate the employees who maintain the campgrounds and trails, and just shut them down. :dunno:
Post by: cougkilr on February 03, 2011, 09:25:43 PM
Quotethere has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free.
Maybe they should cut more trees or trim some fat if you ask me.
Fat???? I agree Bobcat, what FAT are you referring to Ray?
Post by: Wacenturion on February 03, 2011, 10:23:06 PM
While I'm not sure I agree with all the details of this proposed access pass, I still think user fees are a good idea, and probably necessary if we want to keep all the state parks and state lands open. I would rather see separate user fees for state parks, DNR, and DFW lands. I don't use state parks so I shouldn't have to pay. I use WDFW lands occasionally and my hunting license fees should cover that use. DNR lands I use more than anything else and there has never been an access fee associated with DNR lands. Even their campgrounds are free. I really think DNR should begin charging for the campground use, and trail use. Capital Forest gets a lot of use by motorcyclists and mountain bikers. There's no reason they shouldn't be paying something for that, since DNR spends a lot of money on maintaining trails and campgrounds. I would rather see fees charged for that type of use than for somebody just driving through the forest.
Whenever there is a budget crisis, agencies throw out the kind of cuts that get knee jerk reactions from the user groups. The agency believes that gives them additional legislative support in a backdoor way from complaining users that write their legislators. Always the first way to approach budget problems. Cut hatcheries, cut game farms, cut use of areas, whatever pisses users off and force this game to begin.
How about actually looking at department programs and get rid of some of the johnny come lately programs that do very little for the resource or the public. That would be too responsible I guess. Just easier to keep raising fees and losing your base.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2011, 10:38:48 PM
Except the Forest Pass is only needed for parking at or in the vicinity of trailheads. If you're just hunting in the National Forest and don't park at a trailhead, you don't need the pass.
Thats true however if the USFS wanted to they could charge the fee for just access into the forest and would not have to report to anybody regarding the matter. It is just like how most national parks require an acess fee. With the anticipated declining federal budget I wouldn't be surprised if the federal land management agencies started to create new passes or increase fees.
Post by: bobcat on February 03, 2011, 10:46:07 PM
Whenever there is a budget crisis, agencies throw out the kind of cuts that get knee jerk reactions from the user groups. The agency believes that gives them additional legislative support in a backdoor way from complaining users that write their legislators. Always the first way to approach budget problems. Cut hatcheries, cut game farms, cut use of areas, whatever pisses users off and force this game to begin.
Actually, you mentioned hatcheries, what if they eliminated all the trout hatcheries that are nothing but put and take fisheries, and mostly I don't think they're even stocking native fish. It's always seemed like such a waste to me. To put so many trout in these small lakes just so people can go out on opening day and catch eight little trout each, or whatever the limit currently is. I wonder how much money that would save. I'd rather see them spending money on salmon and steelhead hatcheries. Or even sea-run cutthroat, or any species that once stocked, can sustain their population, without having to be replenished before the next year's season begins.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 04, 2011, 07:55:02 AM
Whenever there is a budget crisis, agencies throw out the kind of cuts that get knee jerk reactions from the user groups. The agency believes that gives them additional legislative support in a backdoor way from complaining users that write their legislators. Always the first way to approach budget problems. Cut hatcheries, cut game farms, cut use of areas, whatever pisses users off and force this game to begin.
Actually, you mentioned hatcheries, what if they eliminated all the trout hatcheries that are nothing but put and take fisheries, and mostly I don't think they're even stocking native fish. It's always seemed like such a waste to me. To put so many trout in these small lakes just so people can go out on opening day and catch eight little trout each, or whatever the limit currently is. I wonder how much money that would save. I'd rather see them spending money on salmon and steelhead hatcheries. Or even sea-run cutthroat, or any species that once stocked, can sustain their population, without having to be replenished before the next year's season begins.
That might be true, but before you assume anything, you would have to look at an economic assessment of put and take trout fishing. How many license dollars to the agency does it generate, how many man hours of fishing, how much in retail sales can be attributed to it to mention a few.
Your like or dislike of any fish or wildlife activity may or may not be what others think of it. Do salmon and steelhead hatchery releases sustain themselves? Many probably consider them put and take. Some folks would like to see every hatchery closed period....only wild fish. That would greatly reduce opportunity in many cases.
My point was, instead of regulating away actual participation of users in the field whether you or I participate in it or not, we don't want eliminate it, if it pays for itself. What needs to be cut is managerial waste and unnecessary programs that whether we manage them or not, nothing changes.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 04, 2011, 08:05:55 AM
Except the Forest Pass is only needed for parking at or in the vicinity of trailheads. If you're just hunting in the National Forest and don't park at a trailhead, you don't need the pass.
Thats true however if the USFS wanted to they could charge the fee for just access into the forest and would not have to report to anybody regarding the matter. It is just like how most national parks require an acess fee. With the anticipated declining federal budget I wouldn't be surprised if the federal land management agencies started to create new passes or increase fees.
When I was stationed in San Diego you had to have an "Adventure Pass" anywhere in the NF down there. $30 a yr, $5 for a second pass and $5 per day pass. You had to have it displayed anywhere you were parked in the NF boundaries. Those monies were used for NF improvements (trail maint, trailhead signs, camp ground maint etc). The FS LEO's would issue tickets to people for not having them. Not sure of what the fine was.
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2011, 08:15:08 AM
That might be true, but before you assume anything, you would have to look at an economic assessment of put and take trout fishing. How many license dollars to the agency does it generate, how many man hours of fishing, how much in retail sales can be attributed to it to mention a few.
Just an idea. I always thought it was odd that they would dump tons of rainbow trout in some of the lakes around here, not even considering the native trout that were already there. One of the local lakes that I'm familiar with used to have a population of native cutthroat trout. We used to catch one occasionally but in the later years that I fished there never saw one. I assume they are now extinct in that lake. Kind of a shame to let a native species go extinct so the state can treat it like a commercial fish farming operation.
Post by: Hangfire on February 05, 2011, 08:28:50 AM
The people of the state are wanting to fish as evident by the numbers fishing these little road side gravel pits for some fish.It is often a family outing that produces some thing
they can take home and eat.
Hatcheries began because the native fish could not keep up with demand. Most people wouldn't know a wild fish if they saw it. I used to be friends with the manager (now deceased) of the little Colville hatchery . I was one time fish Trout Lake in Ferry county. This other angler came up and exclaimed how he liked to fish for these native fish not those terrible soft, tasteless hatchery fish. When I told him the rainbow in Trout lake were planted as fry from the hatchery he became angry almost combative. He knew wild fish when he saw them. The hatcheries produce a lot more than legal sized trout.
If hunters/fisherman had the $30 fee reduced by the declared value of the access fee for the launches and only paid the difference it might be acceptable.
BOBCAT- what is the name of the lake that used to have native cutthroat? There has been a lot of changes in the planting program, are you sure they were not hatchery fish planted as fry? I know there are some native cutthroat around but not a lot.
The Cowlitz River is one place where the hatchery fish are being reduced to protect native Sea-Run Cutts. The hatchery Sea-Runs are not being recycled back into the river to protect some very small populations of native Sea-Runs down stream from the hatchery in small tributaries. I used to fish the Cowlitz a lot for Sea-Runs it was one of the most successful Sea-Run fisheries in the state.
Post by: singleshot12 on February 05, 2011, 08:40:32 AM
Doesn't our hunting gizmo we hang on our mirrors cover the hunters? We're paying for it in our licenses, aren't we ?
It does! but we will be paying double now.. us sportsmen can afford it right?? :bash: This whole thing is just a way to make a fast buck
Post by: bobcat on February 05, 2011, 01:57:40 PM
BOBCAT- what is the name of the lake that used to have native cutthroat? There has been a lot of changes in the planting program, are you sure they were not hatchery fish planted as fry? I know there are some native cutthroat around but not a lot.
Pattison Lake, or Patterson Lake, as it used to be known, until they changed the name back to the "original" name. And actually I don't know for sure the cutthroat were native. I just assumed they were, because I never heard of them ever planting cutthroat trout.
There must have been some kind of native fish in these lakes? ???
Post by: Hangfire on February 05, 2011, 07:50:47 PM
Fish planting began in the 1800's by the forest service. They would haul fish in milk cans on trains. They scattered fish all over, that is how a lot of the spiny ray got in the western states. When there were county game departments prior to 1933 there was a lot of random planting. I have heard there is a small population of native rainbow in Packwood lake. I understood they were trying to develop a brood stock with out much luck.
A lot of the high mountain lakes were void of fish. They have been planted by clubs, the state by pack trains, backpac and airplanes. Most other lakes had native resident fish or if stream access, they were rearing area for salmon and steelhead.
Our license fees pay for a lot of things. If they combine the agencies more and charge these other fee's, we will get less.
Post by: Curly on February 06, 2011, 12:06:57 AM
I also wonder if it is possible that they could have been cutthroat from Woodland Creek that would occasionally enter the lakes? Hicks, Pattison, Long Lake, and Lois Lake are all connected by creeks that then flow out to the sound via Woodland Creek. I know Woodland Creek has cutthroat trout in it.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 06, 2011, 06:01:55 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 06, 2011, 06:17:14 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 06, 2011, 06:46:02 AM
I remember watching steelhead in Lake Lois.
No kidding. My highschool buddy landed an awesome Stihlhead in Lois, to all the bankwatchers amazement.
Edit; hey Willie, maybe that was you? :chuckle:
Post by: billythekidrock on February 06, 2011, 09:10:34 AM
I remember watching steelhead in Lake Lois.
No kidding. My highschool buddy landed an awesome Stihlhead in Lois, to all the bankwatchers amazement.
Edit; hey Willie, maybe that was you? :chuckle:
I don't think so. I knew about steelies in there in the mid 70's, where you in HS back then? :chuckle:
I never saw one caught out of there, but we used to watch them spawn in the creek all the time. My father caught his first steelie and it was in LL in the late 50's or early 60's.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 06, 2011, 04:34:05 PM
Post by: fireweed on February 16, 2011, 07:41:48 AM
*This funds PARKS first and foremost, with every $10 you spend, $8.50 goes to parks, and they can use the money for anything (DNR and WDFW must use there puny part for recreation).
*The plan is to bring non-payers, which are mostly park day-users and some DNR non-motorized into the fold with us payers (hunters, anglers, ATV tabs). Problem is their day use fee is way too high ($10 per site per day) to get tourists and casual users of parks to pay, they will JUST SAY NO. Leaving the hard-core outdoor types to continue to pay even more.
*No incentive for parks to be efficient. WHY oh WHY do they need their own Law Enforcement officers? Most rural folks live in towns without police. We call the sherriff and survive just fine.
* $71 million is a pipe dream--this will never bring in that much.
*Administration (enforcement and collection) could eat profits.
Could it be fixed? Maybe.
-> Discount or FREE for people who already pay (Like US hunters/anglers)
-> $5 per site per day or one "week in Washingon" for $10 might not scare the tourists away from parks. Afterall, we do want those day-users to pay.
-> Even spit of money between DNR, WDFW, Parks until the modest needs of DNR/WDFW are met, then fund the parks with anything that might be left.
-> force parks to be efficient: get rid of park ranger LEO, adopt out some parks to cities or counties, or even give isolated park land to the WDFW for awhile.
-> Casual law enforcement attitude about writing tickets (no ticket for first time offenders, just put a pay envelope on the window). There are just too many sites and too much land for this to be anything more than on the honor system, with a slight chance of a ticket. Do we really want all that overhead anyway.
Post by: Special T on February 16, 2011, 09:45:24 AM
Post by: ck on February 16, 2011, 03:33:18 PM
Post by: Curly on February 16, 2011, 03:49:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 16, 2011, 06:33:01 PM
They've already sold several State Parks that I know of. It's amazing how private business can make a profit on parks but the State just seems to F it up........ :o Couldn't be due to the state employee unions and the high wages the State has to pay the employees..... ;)
State Parks has been tranfering some of their parks to local governments for the past couple years. I know the Colville Tribe is/has taken over a park, there are a couple parks on Whidbey or Bainbridge Island looking to be transfered and I know there are other that have been transfered.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 16, 2011, 08:35:36 PM
They've already sold several State Parks that I know of. It's amazing how private business can make a profit on parks but the State just seems to F it up........ :o Couldn't be due to the state employee unions and the high wages the State has to pay the employees..... ;)
State Parks has been tranfering some of their parks to local governments for the past couple years. I know the Colville Tribe is/has taken over a park, there are a couple parks on Whidbey or Bainbridge Island looking to be transfered and I know there are other that have been transfered.
State did the same with a park in Thurston County, then the County went to the Nisqually tribe to manage it. :bash:
Post by: kenbell27 on February 16, 2011, 09:10:56 PM
I remember watching steelhead in Lake Lois.
I used to fish off of the culverts that ran under Carpenter Road when i was a kid but never saw a Stealhead, Probably woudnt have known what to do when if i hooked in to one back then. :chuckle: When i was was in highschool we planted Salmon in the creek that feeds Lake Lois. I wonder if there is still any fish in it.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 16, 2011, 09:21:12 PM
They've already sold several State Parks that I know of. It's amazing how private business can make a profit on parks but the State just seems to F it up........ :o Couldn't be due to the state employee unions and the high wages the State has to pay the employees..... ;)Say it ain't so. :dunno:
Post by: Klyne3 on February 16, 2011, 09:39:48 PM
Post by: Wazukie on February 16, 2011, 10:04:18 PM
so then after reading some on this I still have a question since I already pay to play would this pass take place of the pass I already purchase for Evan's creek ORV park?
No it wouldn't as Evens Creek is National Forest Land, it sits just outside the national park, at least for now.
Post by: billythekidrock on February 17, 2011, 05:58:23 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 17, 2011, 06:06:10 AM
Post by: jackmaster on February 17, 2011, 06:45:39 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 17, 2011, 07:12:32 AM
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 17, 2011, 07:30:49 AM
Here's something else to ponder. If you didn't have a fishing or hunting license and wanted to use the designated areas for hiking, wildlife watching etc you had to have a pass. You went and bought one for $12. So DFW got $12 from that purchase. If this bill passes DFW will only get $2.50 for that pass. So here's another place that DFW is losing revenue.
Post by: bobcat on February 17, 2011, 07:53:07 AM
I do agree- you should be able to swap the pass from one vehicle to another.
I have four vehicles so that means I have to pay $120? :o >:(
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 17, 2011, 08:14:35 AM
It's doesn't appear that they learned the first time. $5 for day use at State Parks and everyone stayed away. Now you want to make it $30! Talk about driving people away. I think that what will happen is after the initial rush of enforcement people will risk the $99 ticket. Especially if they're in some of those out of the way areas because manpower is lacking to send someone to visit every area every day.
I know we need to do something, but I don't think robbing Peter to pay Paul or bending your customers over is the answer. What is the answer? Not sure, but I do know that we need to share the wealth hunters, fishermen, wildlife watchers, hikers etc all need to pay, not just 1 or 2 groups. Also how do you do it effectively and efficiently ie the balance between rules and enforcment and still get the most bang for your buck?
Do you raise the vehicle license fee by a $1 in the name of resource conservation and give .33 to each branch (DFW, DNR and Parks)?
Do you start a new lotto game (scratch off, card game etc) and use the money there for resources?
Do you impose a tax/fee on new recreation vehicles (RV's, ATV's, boats etc) for resources?
What ever decision is made it's not going to make everyone happy.
Post by: Special T on February 17, 2011, 09:55:15 AM
The bottom line is state parks Compete for our TIME and $$$ just like everything else. It is likely time to thin the herd and get lean.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 17, 2011, 10:12:39 AM
Post by: Special T on February 17, 2011, 10:38:49 AM
Sunday, April 29, 2001
State parks become land of the fee
One thing is clear about recreating in 21st Century America: You're going to need a bigger windshield.
Not to block bugs. Just to placate the police.
Most of you who even occasionally walk across, climb up, ski down or snooze upon your public lands probably have an impressive lower-windshield sticker lineup: One for the Forest Service, one for State Sno-Parks, one or more for whomever manages your other favorite outdoor haunts. (Which incidentally leads us to wonder: Isn't it time for a strategic window-decal alliance between the U.S. Forest Service and Jiffy Lube?)
Clear some space, folks, for the new one: Your Washington State Parks day-use parking pass, available soon at a local retailer.
The smoke has cleared in Olympia, and the deed has been done: Starting Jan. 1, it will cost you $5 a day, or $30 a year, to suck a Slurpee at Saltwater State Park, fly a kite at Fort Flagler, or pluck a clam at Penrose Point.
This should come as something less than a surprise. We're already well down the road to becoming the pay-as-you go state.
It takes neither a genius nor a blue-ribbon panel to look at Washington government and conclude that the costs of serving critical needs of a burgeoning population - schools, roads, ferries, bridges, social services, corporate welfare for billionaire sports-franchise owners, etc. - far outstrip available money to pay for them, particularly given recent tax-and-spend limits imposed by voters.
State Parks are an instructive, but by no means unique, example of how this all trickles down to campfire-pit level - and burns a hole in the bottom of your shoe.
Like many state agencies, State Parks was hit in the '90s by the double whammy of skyrocketing use and declining revenues from the state general fund. The choice: Cut service, or charge more for it.
Unfortunately - and perhaps contrary to popular belief - there wasn't a lot of fat left to trim from state parks, where knife struck bone years ago. Further sawing would have created nothing short of severed limbs.
Several years ago, this prompted citizen members of the State Parks and Recreation Commission to issue a dire warning: Give the parks the money they need to survive, or we'll be forced to close some. A lot of them, in fact.
That created a fair amount of outrage - much of it emanating from this column, which wondered out loud: How can a state pretend to offer a high quality of life, but turn its back on the very natural heritage that makes it unique? And doesn't anyone even give a rip?
Some people did. Hundreds responded, and a dozen or more were angry enough to actually do something. They got busy, volunteered their time, and formed the first state parks citizens' lobby group - an effort nothing short of heroic, which continues in Olympia today.
But in an era of rising costs and failing revenues, the best they've been able to do is stave off further degradation - and keep those parks on the closure list open.
That's a major accomplishment. But the truth is that not enough of the rest of us have risen to back them up at crunch time. Further, and even more sobering: No amount of lobby power is likely to channel money toward "expendable" services such as beaches, forests and campgrounds as long the state's regressive, fundamentally-flawed revenue structure fails to pay for even basic human services.
The result - for better or worse, largely of our own making - stares us in the face today: A daily parking-fee system for nearly 100 state parks (see www.parks.wa.gov/public.asp (http://www.parks.wa.gov/public.asp) for a full roster) - a list that likely includes your favorite.
Tough to argue with Parks Commissioners' reasoning: They had no choice, they said, short of dragging that parks-closure hit list back out of the drawer.
What does it all mean?
It means roughly $4 million a year in new revenue will help prop up State Parks' $90 million annual budget - likely keeping all parks open with at least basic services.
It means if you fail to pay the kitty, you'll get a $45 parking ticket.
It means Washington's most magnificent natural places, in spite of the inarguable role they play in what we're all about, will continue to rate a near-zero on our public priority list - receiving less than one-fourth of one percent of the total state budget.
It means state legislator's list of "basic public services" no longer includes free, open access to the few remaining islands of nature in an increasingly asphalt world.
And it means we, through our longstanding and dutiful ignorance, acquiescence and silence, agree with them.
Pay-as-you-go. It's become as much a part of the Northwest persona as picnics at Potlatch. Not such a bad concept, perhaps - at least it accurately describes how we've evolved.
Those who can pay, after all, still get to go. And to hell with the rest of ya.
Post by: BlackRidge on February 17, 2011, 10:47:22 AM
Post by: Special T on February 17, 2011, 10:51:20 AM
Daily park attendance in Washington ranks fourth in the nation. About 46 million people visited the state's 125 parks last year.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010323&slug=parkfees23m (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010323&slug=parkfees23m)
Post by: Special T on February 17, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
Post by: Wazukie on February 17, 2011, 02:06:35 PM
So if this $30 pass come to be then does that mean the Snow Park Pass will go away? Will it all be one acess pass?
Some maybe, but I know all the snow parks out of trout lake are on NFS land so they would still require a separate pass.
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2011, 12:48:14 PM
So if this $30 pass come to be then does that mean the Snow Park Pass will go away? Will it all be one acess pass?
The Sno-Park pass will stay in effect....
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 18, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2011, 03:29:53 PM
Since hunters are loosing theirs, I wonder if we still get our complementary ones when we license our sleds?
As of now there is no legislation that will change the current snowmobile/sno-park permits/licensing.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 24, 2011, 09:14:23 AM
It only takes 24, instead of 40 Hrs. volunteer work for a complementary pass, and I now cant see where the DFW Access pass language used to be blacked out and there is talk of this pass again. which makes me think they are discounting those for hunters and fishermen. Anyone have anything concrete to add??
Seems they just might have listened and Discounted ours,and looks like one per vehicle still (At $5 a pop?for extra permit))
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622-S.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5622-S.pdf)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
partial text
dates; and declaring an emergency.
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
8 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature finds that there is an
9 increasing demand for outdoor recreation opportunities and conservation
10 measures on lands managed by the department of fish and wildlife, the
11 department of natural resources, and the parks and recreation
12 commission. Development and maintenance of outdoor recreation
13 facilities and conservation of lands have not kept pace with this
14 demand. This demand, combined with shrinking resources for management,
15 has led to the degradation of our lands to the detriment of the
16 recreating public and efforts to conserve our natural resources.
17 (2) The legislature further finds that the recreating public cannot
18 readily discern which agency of the state is responsible for the
p. 1 SSB 5622
1 management of particular state lands or which policies apply to those
2 lands.
3 (3) It is the intent of this act to reform and improve access to
4 and management of state lands on a sustainable basis for the recreating
5 public by: Providing a vehicle access permit and access policies for
6 state lands; recovering the cost incurred by the state for operations
7 and management of recreation opportunities; providing resources to
8 address the growing demand and impacts of outdoor recreationists and
9 conservation of our natural resources; and providing effective
10 education and enforcement of state land access policies.
11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The definitions in this section apply
12 throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
13 (1) "Agency" or "agencies" means the department of fish and
14 wildlife, the department of natural resources, and the parks and
15 recreation commission.
16 (2) "Camper registration" means proof of payment of a camping fee
17 on recreational lands managed by the parks and recreation commission.
18 (3) "Discover pass" means the annual pass created in section 3 of
19 this act.
20 (4) "Recreation site or lands" means a state park or any area
21 managed by an agency for outdoor recreation or fish and wildlife
22 conservation including water access areas, boat ramps, wildlife areas,
23 parking areas, roads, trailheads, and trails under ownership,
24 management, lease, or control of the agency, or "public lands" as
25 defined in RCW 79.02.010.
26 (5) "Vehicle" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 46.04.670
27 excluding those vehicles not required to be registered under RCW
28 46.16A.080.
29 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) The discover pass is created as a
30 renewable annual pass that is required to access, park a vehicle on, or
31 drive a vehicle on any recreation site or lands.
32 (2) Cost of the discover pass is thirty dollars per vehicle. The
33 cost of the discover pass must be adjusted once every two years for
34 inflation by the office of financial management.
35 (3) The discover pass is valid for one year from the date of
36 issuance.
SSB 5622 p. 2
1 (4) The discover pass must be made available for purchase
2 throughout the year through the department of fish and wildlife's
3 automated licensing system consistent with RCW 77.32.050.
4 (5) The discover pass must be made available for purchase through
5 the department of licensing as provided in RCW 46.16A.090.
6 (6) The state parks and recreation commission may make the discover
7 pass available for purchase through its reservation system and other
8 outlets authorized by law to sell licenses, permits, or passes.
9 (7) The discover pass must contain space for the vehicle license
10 plate number.
11 (8) A complimentary discover pass must be provided to a volunteer
12 who performed twenty-four hours of service on agency-sanctioned
13 volunteer projects in a year. The agency must provide vouchers to
14 volunteers identifying the number of volunteer hours they have provided
15 for each project. The vouchers may be brought to an agency to be
16 redeemed for a discover pass.
17 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A person may purchase a day-use permit to
18 meet the requirements of section 7 of this act. The day-use permit is
19 ten dollars per day and must be available for purchase from each
20 agency. The day-use permit is valid for one calendar day. The cost of
21 the day-use permit must be adjusted once every two years for inflation
22 by the office of financial management.
23 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) The vehicle access pass is created
24 solely for access to the department of fish and wildlife recreation
25 sites or lands. The vehicle access pass is only available to a person
26 who purchases a current valid: Big game hunting license issued under
27 RCW 77.32.450; small game hunting license issued under RCW 77.32.460;
28 western Washington pheasant permit issued under RCW 77.32.575; trapping
29 license issued under RCW 77.65.450; watchable wildlife decal issued
30 under RCW 77.32.560; or combination, saltwater, or freshwater personal
31 use fishing license issued under RCW 77.32.470.
32 (2) The cost of the vehicle access pass is seven dollars per
33 vehicle. The cost of the vehicle access pass must be adjusted once
34 every two years for inflation by the office of financial management.
35 (3) Only one vehicle access pass may be issued per purchase of
p. 3 SSB 5622
1 hunting or fishing license pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.
2 An additional vehicle access pass may be purchased for five dollars.
3 (4) The vehicle access pass is valid for the license year of the
4 license it is purchased with.
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. (1) The discover pass or the day-use permit
6 are not required for persons who have a valid camper registration
7 issued by the state parks and recreation commission.
8 (2) The state parks and recreation commission may provide up to
9 twelve days a year where entry to the state parks is free. At least
10 three of those days must be on weekends.
11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. (1) The discover pass, the vehicle access
12 pass, or the day-use permit must be visibly displayed in the front
13 windshield of any vehicle:
14 (a) Driving in a recreation site or lands; or
15 (b) Parked at a recreation site or lands.
16 (2) The discover pass, the vehicle access pass, or the day-use
17 permit is not required on private lands, state-owned aquatic lands
18 other than water access areas, or at agency offices, hatcheries, or
19 other facilities where public business is conducted.
20 (3)(a) The discover pass, the vehicle access pass, or the day-use
21 permit is not required for persons who use, possess, or enter lands
22 owned or managed by the agencies for purposes consistent with a written
23 authorization from the agency, including but not limited to leases,
24 contracts, and easements.
25 (b) The discover pass or the day-use permit is not required on
26 department of fish and wildlife lands for persons possessing a current
27 vehicle access pass pursuant to section 5 of this act.
28 (4)(a) Failure to comply with subsection (1)(a) of this section is
29 a natural resource infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. An agency is
30 authorized to issue a notice of infraction to any person who fails to
31 comply with subsection (1)(a) of this section.
32 (b) Failure to comply with subsection (1)(b) of this section is a
33 parking infraction and citations issued under this subsection are
34 governed by chapter 7.84 RCW. An agency is authorized to issue a
35 notice of infraction to any motor vehicle that fails to comply with
36 subsection (1)(b) of this section.
SSB 5622 p. 4
1 (5) The penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of this
2 section is ninety-nine dollars. This penalty is reduced to fifty-nine
3 dollars if an individual provides proof of purchase of the discover
4 pass to the court within fifteen days after the issuance of the notice
5 of violation.
Post by: Special T on February 24, 2011, 11:16:01 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 24, 2011, 11:36:32 AM
Post by: sakoshooter on February 24, 2011, 01:07:53 PM
Yes, the general public will have to pay $30 to use WDFW, State or DNR lands. Hunters/fishermen will have to pay $30 plus buy the appropriette license. Double Dipping into fishermen and hunters wallets is the way I see it.
I urge each and everyone of you to contact Mr Phil Anderson, philip.anderson@dfw.wa.gov
and Governor Gregoire http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/default.asp (http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/default.asp)
Post by: Mauser on February 24, 2011, 01:34:28 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on February 24, 2011, 05:16:04 PM
Hello Mark:
I will try to answer most of your questions to the extent that I have the information. Before I do let me share some information with you regarding the funding and expenditures associated with land maintenance and our boat launches. We spend $14.4 million per year on this activity. Of this amount about 27% comes from hunting and fishing license fees. We receive a little over $6.5 million from federal sources and a modest amount from the state general fund. Responses to several of your specific questions:
1) The current draft of the bill has a $30 annual vehicle fee to access all DNR, Parks, and DFW lands and access sites including boat launches. If you have hold certain hunting or fishing licenses you would be able to purchase a $7.00 vehicle pass that would allow you access to all DFW lands and boat launches. However, if you wanted a vehicle pass for all DFW, Parks, and DNR lands the cost would be $30 even if you held one of the certain hunting or fishing licenses. Note: certain fishing and hunting licenses means some low value license types like a $7.00 razor clam license would not qualify you to use the $7.00 option.
2) Enforcement of the vehicle pass would largely fall on the shoulders of our current enforcement staff, and you are right that we are short handed.
You had one sentence that asked a number of questions and asked for several assurances. What I can tell you is that we are fighting hard not to have our fishers and hunters pay a disproportionate amount of the cost. We are advocating a recognition through the fee schedule that purchasers of hunting and fishing licenses already contribute to access maintenance. I will assure you that I will fight to see that license revenue is spent on activities that promote and support hunting and fishing. There are legislators that have the same concern and are watching carefully that our (your) license fee revenue is used for the benefit of those that pay those fees.
WDFW’s state general fund revenue has been cut by $39 million in the last 19 months. The Governor’s budget cuts another $15 million plus we have a $9 million deficit in our wildlife account due primarily to the sunset of the %10 license surcharge on June 30, 2011. We have two fee bills currently in the legislative process, a license fee bill that would raise $14.2 million and the access pass that we discussed above that would raise $5.5. We are working hard on both of these and appreciate (VERY MUCH) the support we have received from many sportsman for the license fee bill. We will continue to work hard that you (we) are treated fairly in the access bill and that your current and sizeable contribution is recognized.
Thanks for writing.
Phil Anderson
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 24, 2011, 08:16:45 PM
Phil Andersn's reply to my email concerning hunters/fishermen paying for the $30 access pass.
Hello Mark:
I will try to answer most of your questions to the extent that I have the information. Before I do let me share some information with you regarding the funding and expenditures associated with land maintenance and our boat launches. We spend $14.4 million per year on this activity. Of this amount about 27% comes from hunting and fishing license fees. We receive a little over $6.5 million from federal sources and a modest amount from the state general fund. Responses to several of your specific questions:
1) The current draft of the bill has a $30 annual vehicle fee to access all DNR, Parks, and DFW lands and access sites including boat launches. If you have hold certain hunting or fishing licenses you would be able to purchase a $7.00 vehicle pass that would allow you access to all DFW lands and boat launches. However, if you wanted a vehicle pass for all DFW, Parks, and DNR lands the cost would be $30 even if you held one of the certain hunting or fishing licenses. Note: certain fishing and hunting licenses means some low value license types like a $7.00 razor clam license would not qualify you to use the $7.00 option.
2) Enforcement of the vehicle pass would largely fall on the shoulders of our current enforcement staff, and you are right that we are short handed.
You had one sentence that asked a number of questions and asked for several assurances. What I can tell you is that we are fighting hard not to have our fishers and hunters pay a disproportionate amount of the cost. We are advocating a recognition through the fee schedule that purchasers of hunting and fishing licenses already contribute to access maintenance. I will assure you that I will fight to see that license revenue is spent on activities that promote and support hunting and fishing. There are legislators that have the same concern and are watching carefully that our (your) license fee revenue is used for the benefit of those that pay those fees.
WDFW’s state general fund revenue has been cut by $39 million in the last 19 months. The Governor’s budget cuts another $15 million plus we have a $9 million deficit in our wildlife account due primarily to the sunset of the %10 license surcharge on June 30, 2011. We have two fee bills currently in the legislative process, a license fee bill that would raise $14.2 million and the access pass that we discussed above that would raise $5.5. We are working hard on both of these and appreciate (VERY MUCH) the support we have received from many sportsman for the license fee bill. We will continue to work hard that you (we) are treated fairly in the access bill and that your current and sizeable contribution is recognized.
Thanks for writing.
Phil Anderson
1
Looks like to be safe from citation like say on the Colockum where DFW and DNR have been swapping DFW's forest land for for DNR's shrub steppe for years we get to pay, that is unless your on USFS land where .........
2 the enforcement they have will have a field day writing up folks and still tying to perform the functions they were intended for.
3
If DFW and DNR were to get an appropriate share of this fee I could maybe swallow it.
4 I just sent another letter on this and the merger bill
Post by: Special T on February 25, 2011, 06:47:15 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 27, 2011, 05:48:23 PM
From Kirk Pearson one of my house reps
"Thank you for contacting me about house bill 1796. I appreciate having the opportunity to let you know that I agree with your thoughts about this bill,and I am not supportive of it.
Sincerely
Kirk Pearson
Post by: sakoshooter on March 01, 2011, 12:11:19 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on March 23, 2011, 11:17:17 AM
Dear Senator Baxter, Representative Crouse, and Representative Shea:
I would like to express my concern regarding SB 5622 and HB 1796. My issue is NOT with a fee for service model, I'm worried about how the funds are divided and where the priorities lay.
I don't feel that an 8% share for WDFW and DNR each is adequate, or fair. As a dedicated sportsman I tend to use DNR and WDFW lands more often, yes, but I also take advantage of our State Parks, so I hope you don't feel I am biased. But the lopsided revenue sharing model is impossible to ignore. Along with those percentages, here are few other examples that worry me.
What resources are required to manage State Parks vs. DNR and WDFW lands? And by manage, I mean to manage according to a plan often required of farmers and ranchers, or others that own land? DNR and WDFW are already stretched to the max, yet every time I visit a State Park I see numerous employees and equipment. Where’s the balance? With these new increased costs and passes will there also be increased enforcement? And who will that task fall on? DNR and WDFW? We’re already short on that, visit any WDFW boat launch and you’ll see that – every day there are vehicles without passes. Where will the increased compensation be?
WDFW and DOL would be required to make these passes available through their systems, but the State Parks aren't required, but have the option. Costs are higher for WDFW and another separate agency, while State Parks may not absorb any cost.
It states that individuals who pay for campsites are not required to pay for a discovery pass, but those who pay for a license through WDFW may purchase a discounted pass of $7 to access WDFW lands only. Where's the balance here? Are campsite fees being raised? Wouldn't it benefit State Parks to charge a fee as well, otherwise it seems contradictory. Not only is WDFW getting a smaller share, but they're also charging their clients an increased fee. State Parks gets a larger share but is giving their users a break on cost.
My last concern has to do with the rising cost of this pass. It was stated that it needs to be reevaluated every 1-2 years for inflation. Is there a plan to keep costs down, or will we continue to make it so expensive to recreate that we'll be moving towards a European system, where only the rich and famous can recreate? We're already seeing this in parts of our Western states, let's not out price our heritage.
I urge you to consider the details in this bill. As I stated before, I'm willing to help the cause, but I do not see the balance in these bills. DNR and WDFW need better representation, otherwise we're only benefiting a specific market at the expense of everyone. A point of mention – in your district your constituents are very close to Idaho. I am not the only who would or has considered a short move into Idaho to recreate. As Western states tinker with their management systems they’re not just pushing non-residents away, but also they’re own.
Thank you for your consideration.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 23, 2011, 11:52:03 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 24, 2011, 07:50:45 AM
Post by: Jingles on March 27, 2011, 12:52:44 PM
Maybe the State should take a lesson from the private sector of businesses. I want more land for my business but I don't have the money for it so I guess I'll have to wait until I do. Oh does that mean I have to cut my spending somewhere else so I can save for it? yep guess that what it means.... Damned politicians with deep pockets of the public
Post by: bigtex on March 27, 2011, 08:54:04 PM
WDFW Officers already write tickets (and thousands of them) for not having the WDFW Access permit. I find your claim about an officer "not writing" this ticket to be bogus. And if it is true then it wasn't a WDFW Officer. Maybe DNR or Parks
Post by: Special T on March 27, 2011, 10:08:49 PM
Post by: Little Dave on March 28, 2011, 01:25:05 AM
Quote
Here is a question for everyone: These are PUBLIC lands (DNR, WDFW) and the Public paid for them already so why should we have to pay to use something that is already ours?
Well we shouldn't have to, it should have been planned better so that the resources are sustainable. There's still a chance for that. Yes, it could be done, but probably more likely the sun will rise in the west tomorrow. We just don't have the right people in the legislature to craft a sustainable operating budget.
The maintenance cost of assets is something that surprises more people than it should. You'll hear stories from time to time about people that never change the oil in their car, don't clean their guns, live in a nice big but unfurnished house, stuff like that. The same people run the government. They rally the public to build a new school, once it's built there's no money to keep it running. They widen freeways, then struggle for years to find money to maintain the wider roads. They acquire land for wildlife habitat, but struggle to find money to condition the properties.
Post by: bobcat on March 28, 2011, 09:16:58 PM
Here is a question for everyone these are PUBLIC lands ( DNR WDFW) and the Public paid for them already so why should we have to pay to use something that is already ours.
Actually what you'd be paying for is the roads, trails, campgrounds, and the maintenance of all of that. I know the DNR, as an example, has several campgrounds in Capitol Forest, and there is no fee for staying in them. Also all the roads and trails get a lot of use from people recreating in the forest and need to be maintained. I'm sure the WDFW is the same way. Not that I agree with the $30 per vehicle fee. But I'm just pointing out that it does take money to maintain all these public lands.
Post by: Special T on March 28, 2011, 09:40:58 PM
Post by: Jingles on March 29, 2011, 02:16:39 PM
Jingles,Well big tex
WDFW Officers already write tickets (and thousands of them) for not having the WDFW Access permit. I find your claim about an officer "not writing" this ticket to be bogus. And if it is true then it wasn't a WDFW Officer. Maybe DNR or Parks
I hate to say that you don't know what you're talking about but the WDFW enforcement officer I was talking to Stated that he would have a tough time writing a ticket for the $30.00 access fee. and I do know the difference between DNR. State park wanna be cops and WDFW enforcement. Now maybe if I lived over on the west side of this F***ed up state I might not know the difference But here on the east side in the small area I live in we not only know the difference but interact with them on a routine basis. Also The WDFW enforcement officer we have in this area is a member of the community and everyone knows him and he knows most everyone here. Who the crooks are and who needs to someimes have something overlooked
Post by: KopperBuck on March 29, 2011, 03:43:31 PM
Jingles,Well big tex
WDFW Officers already write tickets (and thousands of them) for not having the WDFW Access permit. I find your claim about an officer "not writing" this ticket to be bogus. And if it is true then it wasn't a WDFW Officer. Maybe DNR or Parks
I hate to say that you don't know what you're talking about but the WDFW enforcement officer I was talking to Stated that he would have a tough time writing a ticket for the $30.00 access fee. and I do know the difference between DNR. State park wanna be cops and WDFW enforcement. Now maybe if I lived over on the west side of this F***ed up state I might not know the difference But here on the east side in the small area I live in we not only know the difference but interact with them on a routine basis. Also The WDFW enforcement officer we have in this area is a member of the community and everyone knows him and he knows most everyone here. Who the crooks are and who needs to someimes have something overlooked
Won't challenge what sort of officer we're talking about here. If he is a WDFW guy, he did say what you stated, I would tell him to nut up and write the f'n ticket. Why? Only $30 access fee?... I don't give a sh*t. If I'm paying, everyone else is paying. Otherwise what the hell is the point of having an access fee? It flames me to see people using rec lands that we're pumping dollars in and they can't buy a parking pass. Especially those tools at the boat launches (that's another issue ;) )
I have a problem with the current revenue sharing model. I still don't have an issue with the fee - sure, I get it, they're public lands, but as stated before there are maintenance costs associated. If they don't change it, I sure hope your WDFW acquaintenace changes his tune, because until they reach $71million/biennium they're getting the short end of the stick.
Post by: bigtex on March 29, 2011, 06:44:51 PM
Post by: WCTaxidermy on March 30, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
I did not see this question anywhere in all the posts. How would out of staters be effected, who travel through the state and decide to pull up a forest service road and camp for the night, or out of staters coming up huckleberry picking on forest service land, etc? I'm all for paying my fair share, but adding another tax because the budget can't be controlled is not right IMHO. John
Post by: bigtex on March 30, 2011, 09:56:26 AM
I did not see this question anywhere in all the posts. How would out of staters be effected, who travel through the state and decide to pull up a forest service road and camp for the night, or out of staters coming up huckleberry picking on forest service land, etc? I'm all for paying my fair share, but adding another tax because the budget can't be controlled is not right IMHO. John
The two examples you noted are not WDFW issues but federal Forest Service issues. This fee is only for DNR lands, WDFW lands and State Parks, not USFS/BLM/USFWS/USACE. But either way, law enforcement does not care if you are from Seattle or New York city if you don't follow the regulations, especially since all these areas are signed then you get a ticket.
Post by: Armadillo on March 30, 2011, 10:04:19 AM
Post by: Special T on March 30, 2011, 10:16:49 AM
Post by: Armadillo on March 30, 2011, 10:41:06 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 30, 2011, 11:50:30 AM
Post by: Armadillo on March 30, 2011, 11:53:27 AM
How would we ever know where the money goes anyway?
Post by: Special T on March 30, 2011, 11:56:18 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 30, 2011, 12:14:50 PM
Just like the specilized licence plates and the Rev they generate for your favorite cause? then thier budget goes down by that ammount. :bash: Crack is right.
Kind of a similar situation with several friends who work for a federal agency. Basically it came to the end of the budget year and the office director had several thousand $ left over, so he thought he would be the good employee and return the money back to HQ. Well the next year's budget came out and his office had been cut by the same amount that he returned, the reasoning was that obviously he didn't need that extra money. So how do agencies/offices not lose this funding? At the end of the budget year they stock up on all kinds of office supplies and electronics because they know if they return any left over money that the next budget their office will take a hit. Maybe this is a problem with government spending???? Maybe reward agencies/offices for returning left over funds instead of punishing them....
Post by: Special T on March 30, 2011, 12:27:56 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on March 30, 2011, 12:28:29 PM
Just like the specilized licence plates and the Rev they generate for your favorite cause? then thier budget goes down by that ammount. :bash: Crack is right.
Kind of a similar situation with several friends who work for a federal agency. Basically it came to the end of the budget year and the office director had several thousand $ left over, so he thought he would be the good employee and return the money back to HQ. Well the next year's budget came out and his office had been cut by the same amount that he returned, the reasoning was that obviously he didn't need that extra money. So how do agencies/offices not lose this funding? At the end of the budget year they stock up on all kinds of office supplies and electronics because they know if they return any left over money that the next budget their office will take a hit. Maybe this is a problem with government spending???? Maybe reward agencies/offices for returning left over funds instead of punishing them....
Right on the money.. Worked for a natural resource agency in WA, I came in the end of May - I had more gadgets than I knew what to with. Just trying to dump funds before the end of the biennium. It's sad, but completely true. If you don't spend it, typically they'll remove it. The system doesn't account for fluctuation of needs. One year you may have 100 cost share projects lined up, but the next only 25. Unfortunately this leads to agencies trying to document possible T/A and cost share opportunities, rather than executing. But that's a whole 'nother topic...
Post by: KopperBuck on March 30, 2011, 12:30:00 PM
Its called ZERO BASED BUDGETING! And if I was to pull the kind of $hit they do in their "accounting dept" I would go to jail! One set of rules if your "The Man" and one for the rest of the Peasants!
My agency actually went with that approach, and it's attractive b/c it's different. But good luck getting everyone to move over that direction. There's too much work involved - like documentation, forecasting, planning - you know things that private businesses have to do constantly.
Post by: Special T on March 30, 2011, 12:42:15 PM