Discover Pass coming to two vehicles!

japerry · Dec 6, 2011

Hot off the presses:

Well ain't that cool? http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2153&year=2011

It has wide bi-partisan support, the senate and house versions are the same, it takes effect immediately after it passes, and is slated for the special session. I wonder how quickly this will make it to signing?

Sadly I don't think it'll really change our situation where we need two passes, it'd be nice if an amendment could be made that said if you have one DP in the parking lot, you do not need one on your wheeler.

Spanaway Mudder · Dec 6, 2011

I think they should have it to where you can put your plate number for your tow rig and wheeler and or the ORV tag number.. have one card that is in your wallet and on you for your orv rig and the main pass in the tow rig...

but being the state of Washington.. That might make to much sense for them...

stealthrunner1 · Dec 7, 2011

Spanaway Mudder said:
I think they should have it to where you can put your plate number for your tow rig and wheeler and or the ORV tag number.. have one card that is in your wallet and on you for your orv rig and the main pass in the tow rig...

but being the state of Washington.. That might make to much sense for them...

I'm with you Mr. Mudder!!!!!:corn::beer:

Corey Y · Dec 7, 2011

Or the DNR could use money from timber sales for public recreation on DNR land.

nowires · Dec 7, 2011

Before every one gets excited. I think this comes with a price, and it isn't good

Senators Honeyford, Morton, Delvin, Becker and Schoesler have introduced legislation that would divert 70 percent of the Discover Pass funding going to the DNR and instead of using it for recreation, give it to the trust beneficiaries.

See link to SB5979

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5979&year=2011

This would lower the DNR recreation portion of the $30 pass from $2.40 to 72 cents.

I got this in an E mail last night

Totalled · Dec 7, 2011

Cunts.

Tod · Dec 7, 2011

Crazy Daze said:
Or the DNR could use money from timber sales for public recreation on DNR land.

Unfortunately for us, that is illegal.
All value gained from managing the trust lands must be given to the trust beneficiaries.

Tod · Dec 7, 2011

nowires said:
Before every one gets excited. I think this comes with a price, and it isn't good

I got this in an E mail last night

Gee, that looks familiar :hi:

Check out the thread in the legislative section of this forum for more information.

zukkev · Dec 7, 2011

I don't see where 2153 and 5979 are companioned...2153 and 5977 are, could someone point me in the right direction?:redneck:

zukkev · Dec 7, 2011

zukkev said:
I don't see where 2153 and 5979 are companioned...2153 and 5977 are, could someone point me in the right direction?:redneck:

I see where 5979 does propose changing the divulsion of funds, but you can vote yes on one (hb2153) for the pass, and no on the other (sb5979) since it's not companioned, right????:corn:

Tod · Dec 7, 2011

zukkev said:
I see where 5979 does propose changing the divulsion of funds, but you can vote yes on one (hb2153) for the pass, and no on the other (sb5979) since it's not companioned, right????:corn:

Yes

Also, even companion bills are voted seperately.

The purpose of companion bills is to have idential bills come from the House and Senate side of the Legislature and work through the process concurrently to save time.

zukkev · Dec 7, 2011

Well, that makes it easier to shoot down 5979 while keeping 5977, right?

Tod · Dec 7, 2011

zukkev said:
Well, that makes it easier to shoot down 5979 while keeping 5977, right?

That is my plan :awesomework:

Dave W · Dec 7, 2011

Damn, Kline's on 5977:eeek:

japerry · Dec 7, 2011

Yah, you'll get people on both sides for 5977 .. because we aren't the only one in this game..

This is good :awesomework: ... hikers are our friends for this. And as its currently written, it'd be great for us.

5979 has nothing to do with what I posted. However, we need to make sure we write to our congress-people about rejecting 5979.

japerry · Dec 7, 2011

By the way, 5979 is all republican sponsored. hahaha

PS.. you guys in the south end:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/pages/Becker.aspx

She is one of the sponsors. Someone should make her aware of Elbe and that her bill will kill recreation opportunities there.

japerry · Dec 7, 2011

Also, 5979 is EXACTLY why a user fee will never sustainably work on a public basis for recreation. Too many people want to grab the money. To make a user fee work, you'd have to privatize the ORV parks.

Mark m. · Dec 7, 2011

Just another reason to not buy one.:beer:

Tod · Dec 13, 2011

Senator Hargrove has introduced SB5998.

This bill is similar to SB5977, SB5985 and HB2153 in that it allows Discover Pass transferability between two vehicles.

The primary difference is it also limits the Discover Pass requirements on DNR managed public land to developed areas such as campgrounds, trails, trailheads and associated parking lots.

See link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5998&year=2011

The additional benefit would primarily be for the sort of guy that is just out on DNR managed public land cruising the roads and not using trails or campgrounds.

It would also keep the DNR from setting up roadside D-pass enforcement checkpoints.

japerry · Dec 13, 2011

wow that'd be awesome! .. and by saying 'developed' I'm guessing that takes out the ability to designate a road for ORV use then collect D-pass money for it?

I dunno about others, but it'd be cool if DNR could only collect D-pass revenue in a spot that is developed or grey area.. IE: would the old reiter foothills fall under this law?

I feel that if DNR was making money off people using grey areas, there would be more incentive to play triage mode in these places instead of cutting them off totally. When a grey area (caugh rieter caugh) gets too big, then work to develop it and keep d-pass money flowing.