$30.00 Washington "discovery Pass" State Land

[DOO DAWG]

Apparently the $5 stealth state parks fee didn't work so they are now coming up with this.


This discovery pass is per vehicle non transferable So one for truck and one for sled, or ATV. If you are a hunter,or fisherman this is over and above your licenses and tags


Do you ride state land? BRC Alert 0n SB 5622.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO would sledders get an extra advantage on this, or would none (probably) go to this fund?


The sno-park plowing and trail grooming are paid from your gas tax % and license fees, which run through WSPR (Washington State Parks and Recreation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5622


BLUERIBBON COALITION PARTNER ACTION ALERT!
WASHINGTON - State Legislature Introduces Two User Fee Bills
Dear BRC members, supporters and action alert subscribers,
Tod Petersen, Political Action Committee Chairman for the Washington Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance (WOHVA), just emailed about two user fee bills just introduced in the state legislature.
Tod is asking us to alert all BRC members in Washington State and ask that you read their alert, and if you don't like this legislation and would like ORVs to be exempt from these new fees, then please let both of your State House of Representatives members and your State Senator know how you feel ASAP.
I've pasted their alert below, so please take a minute to read it over and take action. Then, pass this important alert on to your friends and family, and please ask them take action as well.
Thanks in advance for your involvement,
Ric Foster
Public Lands Department Manager
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 107
PS: Don't forget the WOHVA OHV Rally is scheduled for Friday, February 25, 2011, at the State Capitol. Plan on attending and show your support for motorized off-road recreation.
You can download a copy of the flyer hereand more information is available on WOHVA OHV Rally 2011 website.
The Washington State Legislature has introduced two user fee bills.
Senate Bill SB5622 and HB1796 would both require a $30 per year, per vehicle pass to enter any public land managed by Washington state Parks, Department of Natural Resources or Department of Fish and Wildlife.

See links:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5622&year=2011

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1796&year=2011

In addition to any street legal vehicle that you take onto public land, this would also apply to your ORV too.

An ORV permit will still be required in addition to this new access pass.

For each $30 pass sold only $2.25 would go to the DNR and none of that would be specifically allocated to support ORV recreation. Almost all of the rest of the money would go to State Parks where ORV use is prohibited.

If the revenue projections are correct, it works out to over $250 per acre of Parks managed land and only about 75 cents per acre for the land that the DNR manages. While the mission and recreational goals of the two agencies are different, the funding formula is still unfair to the citizens that recreate on DNR managed public land.

If you don't like this legislation and would like ORVs to be exempt from these new fees, then please let both of your State House of Representatives members and your State Senator know how you feel ASAP.

You can find them and contact them via this link:

www.leg.wa.gov

Some sample words to consider, or better yet write some of your own.

++++++++++++

Please exempt offroad vehicles from the public land access fees proposed in HB1796 and SB5622.

They already pay their access fee via the ORV gas tax and ORV use permits.

This is the only trail based recreation in the state that is completely self funded and now the Legislature is proposing to have these same citizens pay more to support other forms of recreation?

For each $30 pass sold only $2.25 would go to the DNR and none of that would be specifically allocated to support ORV recreation. Almost all of the rest of the money would go to State Parks where ORV use is prohibited.

Wasn't the Governor's request to not allocate general funds for Parks intended to remove the burden of paying for State Parks from the people that do not recreate there?

If so, charging ORV owners a new fee with almost all of it going to State Parks where they cannot recreate does not accomplish that intent.

I support the proper use of the existing fee system.

That is the ORV gas tax refund and the ORV permit fees going into the NOVA grant program and being used to benefit motorized offroad recreation.


SB 5622 - 2011-12

(What is this?)

Concerning recreation access on state lands.

Go to documents...

History of Bill

as of Wednesday, February 9, 2011 10:15 AM

Sponsors:Senators Ranker, Swecker, Fraser, Hargrove, White, Regala, Shin, Chase, Kline, Conway By Request:Parks and Recreation Commission, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011 REGULAR SESSION Feb 1 First reading, referred to Natural Resources & Marine Waters. (View Original Bill) Feb 2 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Marine Waters at 8:00 AM. (Committee Materials)
Go to history...

Available Documents
Bill DocumentsBill DigestsBill ReportsOriginal Bill
Bill Digest
Senate Bill Report (Orig.)

Fiscal Note (Not Available) ++++++++++++++

happy trails,

Tod Petersen

 

[Snodawg]

That's BS that the funds go to the parks instead of the DNR.

However, I am not against a fee to use state land as long as it goes to proper departments. In this day and age, gov't funding is pretty much non existent and it's up to us. If you want to play...you gotta pay. Just the facts of life, anymore. If we can afford to pay for our toys, we can surely pay a small fee to play. It's too bad that it has come to this, but that's the way it is. The other option would be to close state lands. Just take a look at the last two years: This year 62 people/businesses contributed to raise the approx. $25,000 needed to keep the Ahtanum snopark as well as a few other snoparks open (this is not for grooming, BTW) and last year it was 73 (I apoligize if my numbers are off a little, but I believe that they are close). That's pretty lame and I don't think that you will see that happen again next year.
We need to come up with a fair way to fund our lands that is easy to enforce with strict fines for those that don't want to play by the rules.

JMO....Rant Over (for now)...

 

[ruffryder]

However, I am not against a fee to use state land as long as it goes to proper departments. In this day and age, gov't funding is pretty much non existent and it's up to us. If you want to play...you gotta pay. Just the facts of life, anymore. If we can afford to pay for our toys, we can surely pay a small fee to play. It's too bad that it has come to this, but that's the way it is. The other option would be to close state lands. Just take a look at the last two years: This year 62 people/businesses contributed to raise the approx. $25,000 needed to keep the Ahtanum snopark as well as a few other snoparks open (this is not for grooming, BTW) and last year it was 73 (I apoligize if my numbers are off a little, but I believe that they are close). That's pretty lame and I don't think that you will see that happen again next year.
We need to come up with a fair way to fund our lands that is easy to enforce with strict fines for those that don't want to play by the rules.

good point!

 

[sanity]

I am not against a fee to use state land as long as it goes to proper departments.

+1. This one doesn't seem to do that very well.

 

[DOO DAWG]

As I stated before, If you are a hunter or fisherman it is on top of the licences and tags.
As it is now there is a $12 fee included (or $12 if you buy no licenses etc) in your paperwork.
This will now go away. If this passes the DNR gets $2.25, DFW gets $2.25 and statepark thieves get $25.50
So WDFW looses $12, but gains $2.25. I have been paying as a Hunter for YEARS and now thats not good enough, Many have paid nothing.
Put up a Ticket booth at the entrances to state parks and if (A particular park)it still looses money close it.


AS stated above
I am not against a fee to use state land as long as it goes to proper departments.

 

[DOO DAWG]

Also ....on the DFW Stae parks RCO and whoever else merger SB5669 there was a hearing yesterday......

this is what I found so far



THANKS TO ALL THAT ATTENDED AND SPOKE UP FOR US!!!!!!!!!!
For one......

Daniel Fallstrom, WA State Snowmobile Assn;


Okay I wasn't there but here is what I found. Dial up SUCKS!!!! I don't have a month to wait for TVW to load!

I notice there is a lot more paper space taken up by the CON side of discription and comments.

WTF is the washington Assn. of fish and wildlife professionals and WHY TF are the on the pro side,right along with the nature (definately NOT hook and bullet) conservancy, the environmental council and our illustrious governesses staff.

I see the Yakimas were there, not taking a stand. Would that be so our governess wouldn't want to OK OFF reservation casinos?




______________________________________________________________________________________
SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 5669
As of February 11, 2011
Title: An act relating to consolidating natural resources agencies and programs.
Brief Description: Regarding the consolidation of certain natural resources agencies and
programs.
Sponsors: Senators Ranker, Swecker, Regala, Rockefeller, Nelson, White, Pflug and Shin; by
request of Governor Gregoire.
Brief History:
Committee Activity: Natural Resources & Marine Waters: 2/10/11.
Brief Summary of Bill
Ÿ
Fiscal Note: Available.
Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect on July 1, 2011.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
PRO:
The proposal arises out of continuing budget
challenges and a desire to ensure the state looks at government organizations and does not
just cut front-line staff. This will create a simpler, more functional agency structure. It will
also save some money now, with the opportunity for more savings in the future. The
reorganization must keep key environmental protections in place, and ensuring efficient
agencies will help save resources to support these core functions. This proposal is a work in
progress; and, there are suggestions for improvement as it moves through the legislative
process, including ensuring that the commissions continue to serve as forum for public input.

CON:
DAHP is not a good fit with DNR because the two agencies have little nexus and
because DAHP must regulate certain DNR projects and activities. DAHP operating under
DNR could be seen as a conflict of interest. The SPRC is a well run agency that would not
fit well combined with a fish and wildlife management agency. Allowing the Governor to
appoint the agency head makes the position more political than under a commission
structure. There is no objection to government reform or streamlining, but this consolidation
proposal is not the answer. The open public process provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Commission is valuable, and should not be changed. Recreational fishing is a $1 billion
industry in the state, and that economic driver more than offsets the small cost of the Fish and
Wildlife Commission. The citizens of the state adopted the current fish and wildlife
management structure by referendum, and that system has been a success over the last 15
years. The agencies are not broke, and do not need to be fixed. A consolidation process will
impact agency morale and distract from substantive duties, with very little in dollar savings
to show for it. Before consolidating agencies the state should first try all other means to save
money and improve the agencies. The state's natural resources are too fragile to put at risk
by merging the managing agencies and changing management structures.
OTHER: This is an important discussion to have. The commissions should retain a role as a
communication point between citizens and agencies, and be involved in long-term strategic
planning. The recreational fishing industry is open to discussions on this issue, but wants to
Senate Bill Report - 4 - SB 5669
avoid removing policy authority of the Fish and Wildlife Commission and its authority to
appoint the director. DAHP operating under DNR could be viewed as a conflict of interest.

Persons Testifying:
PRO:
John Mankowski, Governor's Office; Kirstan Arestad, Office of
Financial Management; Bill Robinson, The Nature Conservancy; Mo McBroom, WA
Environmental Council; Jeremy Jording, WA Assn. of Fish and Wildlife Professionals.


CON:
Robert Rao, Frank Urabeck, Jim Tuggle, Ray Carter, Joe Taller, Wallace Cogley, Teri
Nomura, citizens; Larry Snyder, Vancouver Wildlife League; Tim Young, Brian Yearat, Mark
James, WA Federation of State Employees; Daniel Fallstrom, WA State Snowmobile Assn;
Paul Sparks, Gregg Bufando, Trout Unlimited; Carl Rienstra, Ted Measor, Jim Howard,
Coastal Conservation Assn., Puget Sound Anglers; Ed Wickersham, Dave Kuno, Lewis
Boyd, Coastal Conservation Assn.; Norman Reinharot, Kitsap Poggie Club; Don Freeman,
South Sound Fly Fishers; Ron Garner, Puget Sound Anglers; Jack Field, WA Cattlemen's
Assn.; Jennifer Meisner, Susan White, Michael Sullivan, WA Trust for Historic Preservation;
Connie Lorenz, Olympia Downtown Assn.


OTHER: Ed Owens, Coalition of Coastal Fisheries, Hunters Heritage Council; Carl Burke,
Fish Northwest, NW Sportsfishing Ind; Dawn Vyvyan, Yakama Nation

 

[Tampico]

I hope to post more this weekend on this-

DooDawgs postings are mainly correct, but we need to keep a few things in perspective:

-There are 2 bills in this thread, SB5622 first post, and SB5669 at the #6; both with different objectives.

ON SB5622:
-This is the bill that will keep the SE Washington side DNR areas open-
-From what I learned last weekend, ORV's are exempt, it is only the tow vehicles or street licensed vehicles that will pay the fee. We are seeking clarification on this, though, just to make sure. I was told this by both a DNR representative and a State Parks representative. This seems to be the straw on whether support will be there or not. I feel WSSA is working hard to get this clarified to our advantage, and put us on an equal footing with other user groups.
-IF BRC is against this, then BRC please send the 25k needed to the Ahtanum Fund 2012 for next year, I will give you an address if needed. If you are going to shoot this down, at least make up for by keeping our lands open (supposedly BRC's goal).
-This is the offshoot of the "explore Washington Pass" that was going to just go to DNR users. I don't know how it went to include the State Park system. This is probably due to the fact that a bunch of state parks will close if there is not a new funding source, and it seemed easy to combine as they are all involving state lands. Even though the % going to DNR seems low, it is enough for the DNR's recreational needs; again, told to me by a DNR representative last weekend. This would change if the NOVA funds are replaced. However, even though they were stolen from us, I have a hard time believing that they will be returned in this serious budget crisis, no matter how hard we rant (stole that one from snodawg.)
-This funding is not for the grooming and plowing (see all my previous posts near the top), but for just keeping the lands open as specific to the DNR. If someone has a better way to do this, please let me know....
-If a funding source, sugar daddy or another source is not found-What will keep the Ahtanum, Rattlesnake, Manashtash and Lily Lake sno-parks and adjacent areas open? The Ski-Benders have done a great job the last 2 years (see disclaimer thread (DNR/Ahtanum Status) near the top of the Washington Riding Area section), but frankly most of the volunteers from that club (and the donors who have given 2 years in a row) are tapped out. Snodawg makes a great point-we spend 10s of Ks on our hobbies, but pay another $30-Holy Cr*p-The world is ending!
-I have also heard that the DNR will start limiting summer access also in the Ahtanum State Forest, trying to get confirmation on that. That would really suck. I am also a summer user, and would hate to see my limits further increased.
-Any other ideas out there? One major point, I have heard many ideas, some decent, some fairly nutty. Follow them through! When it comes to the DNR fundraiser, and all the fliers that have been handed out in the parking lot-everybody wants somebody else to do it! Help out with WSSA, SAWS and your local snowmobile club and make it happen! < peppy little thang, isn't she!
Please read the DNR/Ahtanum Status thread, #2 from the top of this section of this forum. It has a lot of detail about what has gone on with this issue for the current season, and the last one.

Thanks, and a huge thanks to all who actually helped keep the Ahtanum/SE DNR open this snowmobiling season (when it actually gets started again!),

Tampico

 

[DOO DAWG]

Yes Tampico is right, just as I thought you all would understand that fact about 2 bills (both bad as written). I have paid to play on state land for decades. and I really don't see a problem with non DFW customers paying some too, but to give 80%+ of it to State Parks (which I hope to GOD they DON'T merge with) is a travesty. Put up toll boths at the state parks and let the ACTUAL users pay to play.
I hope you are right about the truck only. But I have read the bill and it said per vehicle. Thanks for the input



Even though the % going to DNR seems low, it is enough for the DNR's recreational needs; again, told to me by a DNR representative last weekend

 

[DOO DAWG]

Washington DFW,DNR Lands riders..Don't Forget

Starts today, can't buy 'em Sunday, Monday! Happy Canada day.


I hope you are right about the truck only. You were! But ANY motored vehicle (Car, truck, M/H street legal M/C) without a ATV or Snowmobile Sticker needs one of it's own

 

[tod701]

I hope you are right about the truck only. You were! But ANY motored vehicle (Car, truck, M/H street legal M/C) without a ATV or Snowmobile Sticker needs one of it's own

The D-pass is only required on vehicles that are required to have a street license plate.

Ref: SB5622 section 2 (6).

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session Law 2011/5622-S2.SL.pdf

If you have a dual registered (street plate and ORV permit) vehicle you are only exempt when/where you do not need a street plate.

 

[Tampico]

Tod701 is correct on this.

I hope to have more information as how the "Discover Pass" details pertian to winter recreation in the DNR lands after the SMAC meeting in early August.

Tampico

 

[jacmmaxwell]

This would bother me less if I did not need one for EVERY one of my vehicles. Wifes van, my truck, company truck... instead I've just stoped using the parks all together.

I used to visit our local state parks 3-5 times a week... even if it was just to pull in and eat my lunch.

I'd pay if I could get one pass and use it in any vehicle I'm driving... state needs to fix it's spending not the revinue.

At this point the ticket is cheaper than the pass.

 

[msled]

And it's about to go further south. Being a board member of the Washington State Snowmobile Advisory Committee, we are having our 2011-2012 winter funding meeting Aug 5th-6th & 7th in Wenatchee. We are going to be deciding what stays open and what gets closed for the 2011-2012 winter season as the state is cutting $500,000.00+ from our annual operating budget.
This is a very large cut. What it means is some snoparks may close, many roads will not be plowed and trails not groomed. Any input you may have would be greatly apperciated.

 

[jacmmaxwell]

Then why should any of us pay to register our sleds?

I just feel like the state is heading down the wrong path to fix this crap. And once these fees and closers go into effect there is no way in hell we'll get them reversed.

Thanks god she won't be running again

 

[ruffryder]

Then why should any of us pay to register our sleds?

I just feel like the state is heading down the wrong path to fix this crap. And once these fees and closers go into effect there is no way in hell we'll get them reversed.

Maybe sledders should pay their way completely, instead of receiving govt money and grants?

 

[winter brew]

Sledders have tried to voluntarily raise their tab/fees to get MORE and better grooming but for some reason it hasn't happened.
Sledders have NO problem paying their own way, we just need an avenue to do it.

 

[ruffryder]

Sledders have tried to voluntarily raise their tab/fees to get MORE and better grooming but for some reason it hasn't happened.
Sledders have NO problem paying their own way, we just need an avenue to do it.

agreed, but the last part should be some... as some still don't even register their sleds. Besides the lost funds, it allows for a misrepresentation of the snowmobile populous, making it look like we are a smaller group then reality..

 

[DOO DAWG]

Maybe sledders should pay their way completely, instead of receiving govt money and grants?

ruffrider I already have! And have also had years I didn't ride that my sled was registered,tabbed.


Not sure but I don't believe that sledders have ever tried to raid the general fund for money. Can the state say the same for our fuel tax$?
Years ago I bought Wildlife Plates for my truck, was going to buy them for my Enclosed, but the skeletor and her minions decided to steal the equal amount of $ from DFW as came in for these plates and general fund it. Mirage has no wildlife plates and Truck will soon loose them.

NOW they HAVE thier discover pass, 85% of it's money goes to state parks, and now (call me out if I'm wrong) they want to cut $500,000 from the plowing and close some snowparks AFTER they get (Snowparks tied into state parks, right?) all this ADDITIONAL cash? Did they suspend the License tab stealth ripoff? No!

In this Blue, Libbie, greenie, NIMBY, nanny state where so many would RATHER have no jobs created than build coal export facilities so they can TRY to stop China (Where everything they GLEEFULLY consume is made) from coal power generation, our populace (pugetropolis) continually allows these types that have created these messes to be re elected over and over! ENJOY those extra $100 license fees seattle.

Here's my thing on this I am a hunter who has paid for a DFW access pass since it's inception, and spent lots of money paying to play in our outdoors for decades. Now all of the hitchikers who have paid nothing forever will have to pay something (as I now need this $30 pass where I elk hunt) and they are CUTTING services to those that have paid (Registrations,snopark permits)all along? How many other sledders also hunt and must buy this pass also?

KICK Their ARSES on this msled. They get MORE money and Cut services is not right!


Since I already bought this pass I see ways to use it on more than one rig. It looks a lot like a DFW access pass and is printed on the exact same paper displayed exactly like also.

 

[ruffryder]

We are going to be deciding what stays open and what gets closed for the 2011-2012 winter season as the state is cutting $500,000.00+ from our annual operating budget.

I think I misunderstood this comment. Where does the "annual operating budget" funds come from?

 

[winter brew]

I think I misunderstood this comment. Where does the "annual operating budget" funds come from?

I understand it is a share of gas tax based on a formula using the number of registered sleds and amount of fuel purchased (not sure how that number is calculated) and our sled licenseing fee.
If the $500,000 is accurate, that is ALOT of money to be cut and used for things it was never intended to be used for. I will be pissed if snoparks and access is not plowed while that money helps someone save on busfare!