Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on March 15, 2012, 04:16:26 PM
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103464106731-399/amp_rec_discoverpass_sales_013112.pdf
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2012, 04:35:49 PM
I would imagine that even IF it was possible to figure out if D pass buyers were hunters, the state would do anything to keep those numbers hidden, or confusing. :twocents:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on March 15, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2012, 04:47:42 PM
Are there any other # breakdowns? I would guess the only way to get an educated guess about how many hunters bought the DP is to survey the Hunting Fishing LIC sellers...
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2012, 04:52:57 PM
Also realize that the past fees for parks usage drove usage so low they had to abandon them within 2 years.
The states estimates for revenue generated is WAY lower than estiamated... Something like 10x less I think the expected rev was 70-80 mil??? and they raised 8.7mil...
Post by: washelkhunter on March 15, 2012, 05:06:36 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 15, 2012, 05:37:55 PM
So if your a hiker and buy your Pass at Fred Meyer or Wal-Mart your count would go towards WDFW. So basically only the people who bought them from actual parks or the DOL are not counted towards WDFW's count...
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 15, 2012, 06:09:11 PM
I would like to see the state parks management sold off to private citizens willing to take them on with the stipulation that they have to functionally remain as intended, but let the new owners improve and modernize them as necessary to attract users. Take the government out of it and let the USERS of the resource foot the bills. i know quality and service would improve greatly if that happened.
Have you seen how well that has worked at USFS campgrounds? You go in to poop on the way to a hike, and a uber zealous senior citizen on a four wheeler starts screeching at you that you have to get a campsite if you want to use the can.
I for one don't want to see our property sold off to corporations
Post by: Special T on March 15, 2012, 06:47:05 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 15, 2012, 07:12:02 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 16, 2012, 08:17:26 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 18, 2012, 08:48:46 AM
I would like to see the state parks management sold off to private citizens willing to take them on with the stipulation that they have to functionally remain as intended, but let the new owners improve and modernize them as necessary to attract users. Take the government out of it and let the USERS of the resource foot the bills. i know quality and service would improve greatly if that happened.
Have you seen how well that has worked at USFS campgrounds? You go in to poop on the way to a hike, and a uber zealous senior citizen on a four wheeler starts screeching at you that you have to get a campsite if you want to use the can.
I for one don't want to see our property sold off to corporations
The four wheeler reference alone `probably changed his mind.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 18, 2012, 09:14:06 AM
I would like to see the state parks management sold off to private citizens willing to take them on with the stipulation that they have to functionally remain as intended, but let the new owners improve and modernize them as necessary to attract users. Take the government out of it and let the USERS of the resource foot the bills. i know quality and service would improve greatly if that happened.
Have you seen how well that has worked at USFS campgrounds? You go in to poop on the way to a hike, and a uber zealous senior citizen on a four wheeler starts screeching at you that you have to get a campsite if you want to use the can.
I for one don't want to see our property sold off to corporations
The four wheeler reference alone `probably changed his mind.
:yeah: Took me a little while to figure that one out. Subtle humor isn't my forte
Post by: dreamingbig on March 18, 2012, 02:46:07 PM
Post by: wence5 on March 28, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 28, 2012, 12:56:04 PM
Post by: fireweed on April 16, 2012, 08:33:53 AM
"Oh i don't disagree but if you look at the table, the ONLY fact you can say is that the people that bought the pass @ the state park were the ones willing to pay to use the parks. "
This won't work either. I've bought two DP both at state parks, and use it for hunting DNR land? Why?? Because if you buy at a state park there is no add on fee. So I specifically bought one, turned around and left. Need a survey of DP purchasers with questions like # times visited WDFW, DNR, Parks in last year using DP and why.
Post by: Special T on April 16, 2012, 09:48:18 AM
Post by: washelkhunter on April 29, 2012, 11:45:38 AM
Post by: bigtex on April 29, 2012, 01:42:08 PM
Have talked some hunting friends who said they are agressively writing tickets to those who do not possess a dp...Had a sheriff tell a friend quite rudely that last year was the warning period and all you LAW breakers are going to get tickets now. Law breakers for being on unimproved state land! He rec'd his ticket while driving thru because he stopped to take a piss. I guess pissing in the woods is a recreational activity now! Know where you are Amigos.
State Parks has essentially adopted a zero tolerance policy.
WDFW Officers are citing for Discover Pass violations just like they did with the "old" WDFW pass.
DNR has essentially two different enforcement sections; the actual DNR LE program and their recreation program which has limited citation authority. I know the DNR recreation program has been "educating" people on the pass. Don't know the DNR LE policy.
If you are on ANY DNR lands you need the pass, doesn't matter if you are planning to recreate or just going for a drive....
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 29, 2012, 07:42:24 PM
If you are on ANY DNR lands you need the pass, doesn't matter if you are planning to recreate or just going for a drive....
Bigtex,
Do you mean driving on State Lands or even if you just walk on to State Land?? I thought the pass was just if you drive on state land.
Please let me know as I access lots of state land by foot.
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2012, 08:03:07 AM
If you are on ANY DNR lands you need the pass, doesn't matter if you are planning to recreate or just going for a drive....
Bigtex,
Do you mean driving on State Lands or even if you just walk on to State Land?? I thought the pass was just if you drive on state land.
Please let me know as I access lots of state land by foot.
Sorry yes I meant drive/park. But if you access state land by foot but park on state property you'll still need the pass.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 30, 2012, 08:54:49 AM
Post by: washelkhunter on April 30, 2012, 09:21:21 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 30, 2012, 09:43:29 AM
Thanks Bigtex... A couple more questions. If there is no public access on roads through state land but an adjoining landowner has an easement to drive through to get to his property through state land does he need a pass? Also there are quite a few state land parcels that big timber companies drive through to get to their property..do they need passes??
No
Section 9 3 (a):
The discover pass, the vehicle access pass, or the day use permit is not required for persons who use, possess, or enter lands owned and managed by the agencies for purposes consistant with a written authorization from the agency, including but not limited to leases, contracts and easements.
The pass requirement is also limited to "recreation sites or lands" { Sec 3 (1)}
If youare driving an arterial road on state or dnr land to access NF or private property you dont need the DPass. There is going to be a big lawsuit about this nonsense. The state is i believe violating our civil rights. This whole business is a compelling arguement for not wanting the states to acheive control over federal lands.
Most arterial roads are actually WaDOT or county property. But you are correct that there will probably be a lawsuit sooner than later.
I'll give you a for instance: Our own BigTex maintains that WaDNR does not have a recreation mandate. Instead, the lands are by and large for commercial extraction of resources. Thereby, they are not recreation lands. So a Discover Pass cannot be required for using DNR lands because the Discover Pass is limited to recreation sites and lands.
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2012, 09:50:18 AM
I'll give you a for instance: Our own BigTex maintains that WaDNR does not have a recreation mandate. Instead, the lands are by and large for commercial extraction of resources. Thereby, they are not recreation lands. So a Discover Pass cannot be required for using DNR lands because the Discover Pass is limited to recreation sites and lands.
[/quote]
I have never said that DNR is not mandated or required to offer recreation. I have said that recreation is not their main goal as an agency. DNR's main purpose is to bring in money to the state by ways of logging, etc. Because DNR owns forests, beaches, etc recreational opportunities are offered. But for example DNR does not purchase lands just so they can open a new ORV park, or build a new trailhead. DNR purchases lands so they can make money off the land. If that land turns out to be great hunting lands, then great. But DNR will not buy land just because it is great hunting area
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2012, 09:58:32 AM
Instead, the lands are by and large for commercial extraction of resources. Thereby, they are not recreation lands. So a Discover Pass cannot be required for using DNR lands because the Discover Pass is limited to recreation sites and lands.
You should be aware of a change of definition of recreation sites and lands in regards to DNR.
Prior to a bill that was passed this March the following was a DNR rec site/land: "department of natural resources developed or designated recreation areas, sites, trailheads, and parking areas"
Due to the passing of ESSB 2373 a rec site/lands in regards to DNR now is: "state lands and state forest lands as those terms are defined in RCW 79.02.010, natural resources conservation areas as that term is defined in RCW 79.71.030, natural area preserves as that term is defined in RCW 79.70.020,"
It was this change that essentially made the Discover Pass required for ALL DNR lands, whereas before it was simply those with recreational uses.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 30, 2012, 10:02:13 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 30, 2012, 10:08:14 AM
I have never said that DNR is not mandated or required to offer recreation. I have said that recreation is not their main goal as an agency.
Actually you did. Their mission is their mandate.
Furthermore, the goals of their mission are not prioritized. The mandate of the DNR is to ensure a high quality of life, public safety, environmental protection and perpetual funding of schools and communities by bake sale
DNR's mission is NOT to provide recreational opportunities like most people think, it is to bring in $ to the state through logging, geoduck commercial sales, agricultural leasing and so on.
You are giving short shrift to their full mandate and missionQuoteAt the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) our mission is:
In partnership with citizens and governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and communities, and a rich quality of life.
Source: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/aboutdnr/Pages/Home.aspx
And once again, no mention of "recreation" in their mission.
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2012, 10:48:39 AM
Instead, the lands are by and large for commercial extraction of resources. Thereby, they are not recreation lands. So a Discover Pass cannot be required for using DNR lands because the Discover Pass is limited to recreation sites and lands.
You should be aware of a change of definition of recreation sites and lands in regards to DNR.
Prior to a bill that was passed this March the following was a DNR rec site/land: "department of natural resources developed or designated recreation areas, sites, trailheads, and parking areas"
Due to the passing of ESSB 2373 a rec site/lands in regards to DNR now is: "state lands and state forest lands as those terms are defined in RCW 79.02.010, natural resources conservation areas as that term is defined in RCW 79.71.030, natural area preserves as that term is defined in RCW 79.70.020,"
It was this change that essentially made the Discover Pass required for ALL DNR lands, whereas before it was simply those with recreational uses.
Thankyou for pointing this out. :tup: This is why our state GOV is so EVIEL! They make the sales pitch that this is just for Improved recreations sites like parks, boat launches, DNR camping places and such. THEN by Making a agency definition change, that requires no public input they change the "Deal". This is the reality of the State, give an inch and they will try and take a mile. They have increased the price by $3 and have included more lands trying to coerce more of us into paying. Well i won't be buying one and i encourage people to alter their actions so that you don't need to buy one. :twocents:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 30, 2012, 10:50:55 AM
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
Instead, the lands are by and large for commercial extraction of resources. Thereby, they are not recreation lands. So a Discover Pass cannot be required for using DNR lands because the Discover Pass is limited to recreation sites and lands.
You should be aware of a change of definition of recreation sites and lands in regards to DNR.
Prior to a bill that was passed this March the following was a DNR rec site/land: "department of natural resources developed or designated recreation areas, sites, trailheads, and parking areas"
Due to the passing of ESSB 2373 a rec site/lands in regards to DNR now is: "state lands and state forest lands as those terms are defined in RCW 79.02.010, natural resources conservation areas as that term is defined in RCW 79.71.030, natural area preserves as that term is defined in RCW 79.70.020,"
It was this change that essentially made the Discover Pass required for ALL DNR lands, whereas before it was simply those with recreational uses.
Thankyou for pointing this out. :tup: This is why our state GOV is so EVIEL! They make the sales pitch that this is just for Improved recreations sites like parks, boat launches, DNR camping places and such. THEN by Making a agency definition change, that requires no public input they change the "Deal". This is the reality of the State, give an inch and they will try and take a mile. They have increased the price by $3 and have included more lands trying to coerce more of us into paying. Well i won't be buying one and i encourage people to alter their actions so that you don't need to buy one. :twocents:
Ok here is how it went. When the original bill passed in 2011 DNR was told by the legislature to establish their recreation areas that are "developed or designated recreation areas, sites, trailheads, and parking areas". DNR had free will to designate which areas are and are not under that definition. Some people have said that DNR changed the definition, they did not, they simply modified the areas that fell under that definition.
Now here in 2012 the new bill was passed which simply made all DNR land requiring the pass.
Both of these bills were open for public input. Did DNR take input as far as which actual areas were required under the "old" definition, no. But anybody could have commented when the actual definition itself was being drafted.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 30, 2012, 11:09:21 AM
Some people have said that DNR changed the definition, they did not, they simply modified the areas that fell under that definition.
That is truly an incredible word game
Now here in 2012 the new bill was passed which simply made all DNR land requiring the pass.
Both of these bills were open for public input. Did DNR take input as far as which actual areas were required under the "old" definition, no. But anybody could have commented when the actual definition itself was being drafted.
I think it is clear by some of the actions of word smithing by WaDNR, that we the people and probably many legislatures got the wool pulled down over our eyes on this
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2012, 11:20:54 AM
I think it is clear by some of the actions of word smithing by WaDNR, that we the people and probably many legislatures got the wool pulled down over our eyes on this
Knocker,
I find it interesting that legislators (from both parties) last year complained about where the pass would be requried for DNR lands. But yet the bill that was passed this year, simply widened that spectrum of areas it is required. I think most people last year were thinking the legislature would actually tighten/toughen where the pass is required. Definitely not what happened.
This isn't directed at you, but you did bring it up.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 30, 2012, 11:24:45 AM
I find it interesting that legislators (from both parties) last year complained about where the pass would be requried for DNR lands. But yet the bill that was passed this year, simply widened that spectrum of areas it is required. I think most people last year were thinking the legislature would actually tighten/toughen where the pass is required. Definitely not what happened.
You bring up some good points.
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2012, 12:04:16 PM
I'm guessing ESSB 2373 is an admin code for??? DNR??? Or is it a legislature bill? I was under the impression it was DNR from your post. :dunno:
I understand WHY they did it. It makes "enforcement" easier, but the added benifit is more hunters get goat roped into buying the pass even when not using "improved areas".
The Whole DP does not really help the WDFW or DNR so if i worked for either group, I would not be too excited about enforcing the DP :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2012, 01:40:56 PM
Big Tex, there are Shisters in both parties. I won't lay this all on the DNR, however they partially to blame.
I'm guessing ESSB 2373 is an admin code for??? DNR??? Or is it a legislature bill? I was under the impression it was DNR from your post. :dunno:
ESSB 2373 is the legislature bill
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2012, 01:55:15 PM
Post by: heavy hauler on April 30, 2012, 04:04:28 PM
Post by: jeepster on April 30, 2012, 04:30:45 PM
:pee:
:yeah:
i didnt buy one, and i never will. i avoid areas where it is required. i already pay enough in hunting and fishing lisences. there are plenty of places still out there where you can get away with out one, and generally, that also means less people
Post by: danderson on April 30, 2012, 05:30:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 30, 2012, 05:43:21 PM
Heading out tomarrow shed hunting and Im still not sure what areas will require the DP :dunno:
Those areas owned by DNR and State Parks need the DP.
Areas owned and managed by WDFW either the WDFW Pass or DP
Post by: danderson on April 30, 2012, 10:35:29 PM