In case it's still not clear enough, let's try to explain it this way.

Joe Kayak, who doesn't fish, buys a Discover (Your Wallet) Pass and can launch his floating toothpick anywhere he wants, camp where he wants, etc.
You (and I), on the other hand, have two State-Honored pieces of sh!t-house paper to babysit. What do we get to do that Joe doesn't? Nada, Zip.....Not a damn thing.

I sure feel honored that our "...... contribution was recognized in the legislation....."

From the WDFW website....

As many anglers and others who enjoy the outdoors know, beginning July 1 a pass will be required for motor-vehicle access to state recreation lands managed by WDFW, the Department of Natural Resources or State Parks. The new Discover Pass will go on sale later this month at recreational license dealers statewide and online at https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov . The Discover Pass, which costs $30 per year or $10 for a one-day pass, was recently approved by the Legislature to keep parks and recreation lands open despite steep budget cuts. Visit www.discoverpass.wa.gov for details.

But most anglers and hunters will not need a Discover Pass to access WDFW lands or boat-launch sites. That’s because a free Vehicle Access Pass comes with the purchase of a saltwater, freshwater or combination fishing license; big-game or small-game hunting license; western Washington pheasant permit; trapping license; or Watchable Wildlife decal. These license holders must simply display the free Vehicle Access Pass on WDFW lands.

In continuing to beat the dead horse my inquiry to WDFW resulted in the following response:

"Thank you for contacting the Department of Wildlife. I apologize for the delay in response, we have been working diligently with State Parks and the Department of Natural Resources to get the information needed to address your questions.



· After June14th, the WDFW Vehicle Use Permit will no longer be available to purchase as a standalone item; however, it will continue to be issued as a complimentary item with the purchase of WDFW annual fishing or hunting license. You may want to wait until June 15th to purchase the Discover Pass if you are going to access DNR, State Parks, and WDFW land. Or, if your only intent is to visit WDFW lands then I suggest purchasing this item now, or getting it as a complimentary item with your annual fishing or hunting license.



For more information please go to the Discover Pass Frequently Asked Questions at: http://discoverpass.wa.gov/faq/ OR to the Discover Pass Home Page a: http://discoverpass.wa.gov/ Information is being updated weekly.

Feel free to send to: Licensing@dfw.wa.gov any suggestions for improvements or requests for additional information. Our customer’s feedback and questions are being evaluated daily. The information provided by our customers is a very important to us, and is used to improve our services and website. For questions or comment regarding the Discover Pass You may also contact us directly by phone at: Call toll-free (866) 320-9933."

So, the stand alone WDFW access which used to have a value of $12.00 will no longer be provided for jet skiers and bird watchers to access WDFW sites but that access will be available to them via a Discover Pass yielding a couple of bucks to WDFW. For those of us having purchased a qualifying license the WDFW vehicle use permit (VUP) will be provided as a complimentary item which my Webster's defines as given free as a courtesy or favor.

And via separate response WA Parks confirmed there is NO price adjustment to a Discover Pass for those folks who already hold a qualifying license and VUP. I'd suggest we will be paying twice for access to WDFW lands but since WDFW now considers the VUP to be a complimentary item (free) to qualifying license holders I would be wrong.

Why do I feel so, well, dirty????

Larry, as was pointed out to me, nothing is finalized yet, not that I put any faith in the Department to treat this issue with any regard whatsoever for the sportspeople who have supported the ever-expanding dilemma of thievery by politico's from the DFW purse.

IF....repeat IF the Discover Pass allows the purchasers of same (who don't have licenses or permits that provide them with the infamous Vehicle Use Permit) to access WDFW sites, THEN there could be a problem, IMO. That is, I believe, commonly referred to as "double dipping"....... and it's my wallet they are double dipping into........and I have a big problem with that.

There are a number of things that piss me off about this whole deal.....THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE MONEY. The fkrs just don't "get it" that doing things in an honorable way leads to respect, and trying to weasel more coins from the patrons by sneak tactics leads only to animosity (at least if you haven't been groomed and beaten down to the point that you either quit thinking altogether or just accept the whippings).

Every male knows that his testicles drop down when they are very young. I don't know at what age it is, that for some, they just simply fall off.

puzzling

That's just fine Aunty......as long as purchasers of the Discover Pass CAN'T access DWF lands without a vehicle use permit that is NOT complimentary with the purchase of said Discover Pass.

So my property borders capital forest and my wife , kids and i ride our motor bikes on the trails almost everyday so i wonder if the the pass will be for the whole family or individualy? I personaly dont mind paying for the pass because my family uses the property more than most but, the way they are going about things is absolute B.S This maybe the BEGINING OF THE END FOR MOST.

it looks like if you have orv stickers you wont need the pass but if your bike is street legal you will need it.

While it's true that people with the WDFW vehicle permit could avoid the extra expense by not visiting DNR and State Parks-managed facilities, I think a lot of us will find ourselves needing the pass at some point. For example, a LOT of the public access to the Hoh River is on DNR land. I dare say that more than a few of us visit the Hoh at least once a year, which means we would be subject to the fees if we wanted to use any of those access areas. Another example would be the East Fork Satsop around Schafer Park. We'll need the pass to park there now, too.

Along those same lines, something else that kinda sucks (but isn't a huge deal) is that those DNR campgrounds used to be free, and that's one of the (lesser) reasons I liked camping there. Now, it will cost $30/yr. to camp there, which isn't much, but it's more than free.

I suppose I'll pay the fee without grumbling too much, but there's no question in my mind that we sporties are getting double-dipped, and that is crappy to say the least, if not altogether illegal.

Does each logging truck require the pass to go harvest our public trees on our DNR lands?

good point.

Loggers are conducting commercial business under contract rather than recreating.

I have adamantly refused to "donate" to parks as a part of my annual vehicle registration in the belief that users should be paying toward the maintenance of said facilities whether overnight, day use, or boat launching. To be consistent and because I will probably have opportunities this year to warrant the Discover pass I will be purchasing one. It would be more appropriate if it was to be issued to me rather than for a specific vehicle. In fact, that it is vehicle specific is a major complaint!

And while I do not like the "double dip" aspect my bigger concern there is that the WDFW VUP is now being issued to license holders only and is being described by WDFW as "complimentary."

In the past I was of the belief that some portion of my license fees was going to land and facilities purchase and maintenance. Now that the VUP is complimentary will any of my license monies go toward real property purchase and maintenance? Or will WDFW redirect that license money internally and then rely upon their small portion of each Discover Pass sold for acquisition and maintenance? And if so what will happen when that doesn't generate enough money?

I think WDFW needs to address this issue openly with its primary stakeholders to clear the air. Left as it is I have the uneasy feeling that I just left the carnival after having had my pockets picked.

It will be interesting to see how LE and courts will handle enforcement on violators not having the Discover Passes when accessing designated lands?

As messed up on the enforcement and fines regarding users of WDFW boat launches and hunting sites are, I believe enforcement of those not having Discovery Passes will be a can of worms.

I will buy a Discovery Pass, even though my household has three WDFW parking passes just so I can access DNR sights where I pick Chantrelles each Fall.

I will not longer donate the $5.00 volunteer fee for State Parks when I purchase my vehicle license renewals.

Sometimes the best intentions create more problems than they solve.

Here is what I gathered from a talk with a legislator friend of mine.

They tried to work with the snow park pass folks, snow mobilers, so that the snow park pass qualified as a substitute Discovery Pass. One fee for both, essentially, $30. The Snow Park folks said no.

They tried to work with the CCA, $7 more for holders of a WDFW permit. CCA said no, and wanted the language as it is now.

These two groups are examples of groups who refused to play ball, so instead of the snow park folks paying $30 for one pass, they get to pay $60 for 2 passes. Instead of hunters and fishermen paying another $7, we get to pay another $30.

Nice.

Cutting off our noses to spite ourselves.

That worked out well didn't it. Pretty stupid.

One person cannot change that tide, unfortunately. You know that. He is as disgusted with the whole thing, and his party, for the whole affair. It was a solution to an inevitable event that would have saved money, but NO, we gotta stand on principal. Stupid. (not you, the groups described above)

This is reality.

It is a user fee passed onto fishermen, who by and large are their supporters. Access to many of the rivers is through DNR land. I don't see the issue.

My Ducks Unlimited chapter sponsored opening up walk-in access to the diversion dam on the Nooch because no other group would stand up. Without our support it would have not been re-opened. Was it duck related? No. Was it the right thing to do, yes, because it affected a lot of our supporters. It actually pissed off one of our supporters, the guy who lives next door who had it closed. He still comes to auctions.

We did it. Any adverse repercussions? No.

People need to get off their asses and do the right thing. There is no excuse for not doing so. The CCA had an opportunity to save an impact to all of their supporters, and they failed. Apparently they are not as politacally adept as folks may think. Great fund raisers, yes.

All I am hearing is excuses. People really lack vision sometimes. (again, not directed at you, just these organziations who dropped the ball) Looking only in the black and white areas on what you can't and can do, and not exploring into the gray areas shows lack of effort.

He tried to do that, but the folks in his party wouldn't budge, hence his disgust. (D) in case folks may or may not know.

The reality is that the fee was a foregone conclusion at the time he approached CCA and others about a compromise of sorts. They had an opportunity to mitigate the impact of an impending action. They didn't. That is the fact and the reality.

One representative cannot by himself change the flow of the political process. They can have an impact, and influence things in the direction they want things to go, but by themselves, they cannot just make it be that way because they want to be that way. That is reality.

Essentially he approached both groups, said "Your supporters are going to get screwed in the ass. You want lube, or no lube?"

My ass is sore. I'm done.

I agree that the Legislature blew this and didn't need help from special interests to do so.

The key difference between CCA "playing ball" with the Legislature in this situation and, say, Ducks Unlimited stepping up and supporting something that wasn't directly associated with their mission (which I think was a classy, proactive move and deserves recognition) is that the current situation involves largely unpopular fee increases that WILL NOT be used for conservation purposes or improve any opportunities for sportsmen of any fin, fur, or feather. They will only leave us with a more expensive status quo. That CCA would choose to stay out of the conversation is consistent with their mission statement and makes perfect sense to me. The fee increases CCA did support were those that SHOULD directly increase funding for conservation and fisheries improvement projects. While I don't know the history, my guess is that DU would not have opted to support opening access to the diversion dam had that decision associated them with fees that would have been assessed to duck hunters, despite the fact that they would reap no benefit from those funds.

The Discover Pass is a unilateral product of the Legislature. As such, implementation lies squarely on their shoulders. While they betrayed and angered sportsmen in the way they chose to implement the fee structure, they managed to apply another band-aid to the gaping wound that is the historic mismanagement of state parks monies, so from their perspective, this was a job well done. When confronted by one of the folks getting screwed, any good politician will always have a spin. In this case, it was to blame organizations that declined invitations to put their names on fees their memberships oppose. I don't want to be CCA's official apologist, but as a member, I am not disappointed in the least in the way CCA handled this.

As a side note, the fact that the Legislature consults CCA on stuff like this is an indication that CCA has enough political clout to be a required audience in all discussions that affect sport fishers. Therein lies a significant value to the sport fishing community, and what I believe is the best reason to join CCA.

I'd like to give a possible new viewpoint here. I've been missing form the boards awhile but in a position to see the inside of local and state politics. I watch a clear, deliberate stance from the government during budget disaster to make the voters feel the need for more tax money where it hurts. That fact that I'll have to pay $30 more feels not as bad as closures unless something like an income tax happens. It could have been much worse.

I'm afraid I don't understand you're point, other than "It could have been much worse.", and that's always the case when the Legislature is involved.