I wonder if he cares enough about outdoor recreation to do away with the discover pass... fu(king idiot$



Inslee calls for new initiative promoting outdoor recreation

OLYMPIA — Outdoor recreation is a multi-billion-dollar industry supporting more than a quarter-million jobs in the state.

Gov. Jay Inslee says Washington can do better. On Thursday, Inslee announced the creation of a task force aimed at getting more people — from tourists to school kids — outside and enjoying the state’s natural areas.

“Getting people outdoors helps us — not just spiritually and educationally, but also economically,” he said in a speech to nearly 100 representatives of outdoor recreation nonprofit groups and state natural resource agencies working together under the newly-formed Big Tent Coalition.

He cited several findings in a recent report from the Outdoor Industry Association, which estimated that the $22.5 billion spent on outdoor recreation each year in Washington supports 227,600 jobs and generates more than $1.5 billion in state and local tax revenue. The number of outdoor recreation jobs in Washington earned it a ranking of sixth in the nation, according to the association. At the top of the list was California, followed by Florida, New York, Texas and Georgia, which was just above Washington with 230,000 outdoor recreation jobs.

Inslee’s task force will have 15 members, including four state legislators. The roster is expected to be finalized in a couple of weeks. The task force will hold several meetings around the state over the next nine months. By October, the task force will begin making policy recommendations to Inslee, the Legislature and various government agencies.

The task force will study how other state governments, such as Utah, have taken a more aggressive and focused approach to promoting outdoor recreational opportunities, said J.T. Austin, Inslee’s natural resources policy adviser.

State Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesman Bruce Botka said state agencies like his never gave much consideration to economic growth. That has changed in recent years as Fish and Wildlife, the state Department of Natural Resources and Washington State Parks have had to rely more on user fees and other revenues.

Botka admits that past governors have called for similar initiatives promoting outdoor recreation.

“But this governor doesn’t just talk about the outdoors,” he said, noting Inslee’s well-known love for the outdoors.

Inslee is an avid hiker and regularly kayaks near his Bainbridge Island home. When last week’s snows hit, he explored the capital’s campus on cross country skis.

Outdoor recreation was a key part of his upbringing, starting with regular wildlife-watching hikes with his parents on Mount Rainier.

“My early experiences connected me to what this state is — a beautiful place,” he said. “But I was lucky.”

Inslee is concerned that fewer children are spending time outdoors.

“For the first time in our history, our children’s life spans will be shorter than my generation’s,” he said, citing rising child obesity rates.

“We need to get kids off their rears and into the woods,” he said.



Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2014/feb/1...s#ixzz2tGtUEg9m
Follow us: @KitsapSun on Twitter | KitsapNews on Facebook

I'm sure whatever they do, we will take the shaft with more taxes.

So far, for my money, Inslee has been the ultimate fence-rider... and applying that label to a governor really says something. His mission is to conserve natural resources and promote green energy (while "growing Washington's economy" with environmental disasters like coal and oil exports), to increase awareness of the outdoors and quality of outdoor experiences (while assuring more existing tax revenues go to pay for failing infrastructure projects and keeping death row inmates alive longer), etc....

I question how much of the irony is due to Inslee's agenda, however, as compared to the hopeless budget shortfalls his predecessors (and the state of our economy, in general) left him. Kind of like Obama in my opinion. A lame duck, with no hope of a positive legacy, and therefore, just "playing the game."

I think we're about to have a rude awakening to the fact that there are simply too many people on the planet, competing for limited resources, to allow for the standard of living we have enjoyed in this country for a long time to continue to be sustainable. The fact is, there are only so many resources, natural and financial, to go around, and we can't all have it all anymore. Find me a politician who can fix that, and he/she's got my vote....

You seem to use the word 'fact' quite easily. What you call a fact I call an assumption. I don't agree with your assumption that there are too many people on the planet, and I don't believe you have any proof that there is. As far as resources go consider the recent history of energy: wood, then coal, hydro(as in) water wheals, Whale oil for light, kerosene for light, hydro(as in)damns for light and power, oil for power and as chemical stock, and our oil and gas reserves declined, so now we now frack, we also have nuclear, we have barely scratched the surface of wind, solar, tidal, wind driven water, resources. I'm afraid that you vastly underestimate the creativity and resource that is mankind.

It is hard to respond to your claim that "there are only so many financial resources", because it is so clearly false. Do you realize that your statement is akin to saying that there are only so many ideas? Do you realize that that economic gain is not a zero-sum game, and that our financial resource need not be a pie of static size to be divided, but that the pie can be made bigger?

Your 'defense'? of Inslee is a knee-slapper, please see http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post885112

You right wing guys are sure quick to label a guy an apologist for Democratic officials. I did say I didn't think Inslee was to blame for a lot of this mess, but I didn't mean to suggest he was doing anything great for Washington. I didn't vote for him....

If I'm a little hard on mankind sometimes, it's not because I underestimate our abilities. It's because the same lazy nature that prompted us to create our greatest inventions is currently only prompting us to find new ways to capitalize on what's already been done. I think somewhere along the line, we reached a point in our development where life was easy enough that we got complacent and stopped applying that same creativity you so revere to new problems. We just keep applying our old ideas to new problems. As long as the results aren't catastrophic, we tend to be satisfied. Trouble is, our habitat has limitations (my opinion), and we haven't yet demonstrated a sincere desire to address those issues, as the changes necessary would probably require us to make a few quality of life sacrifices.

I agree these points aren't proven facts; I'll call them my opinions. Frankly, I hope they are never proven as facts, because that will mean a good life for our future generations. I think mankind is capable of solving a lot of the problems we face, but I'm not sure we'll get serious about it before things get really bad. I sincerely hope to be proven utterly wrong on that assumption as well.-

Rev. Blackmouth,

You make an interesting point about ideas. While ideas may be infinite, I wonder if you think the same about the number of people this planet can support, and if the creativity and resource that is mankind can muster the resources to support them. I saw on TV once (I know, highly reliable information source) that there aren't too many people in the world, and as proof, the program narrator pointed out that all 7 billion of us, standing shoulder to shoulder, could easy fit in the state of Texas, with room to spare. Of course, even a half wit, and maybe most Republicans, knows that 7 billion people couldn't actually live in Texas. And many know that much of the world's land surface is not inhabitable. Hell, some of us pragmatists think arid regions like Phoenix, LA, and Las Vegas, to name a few, are already over-populated, given the lack of water. Turn off the long pipe spigots and they die.

So what assumptions do you agree with? Is there a finite number of people this planet can support? And if so, about how many do you think that would be?

Sg

You apologists for Democratic officials are sure quick to label any criticizer of them to be right wing guys.


I found this statement of yours to be humorous because often after a nice evening meal, life seems easy enough and I lack the impetus to address my problems for the moment, and I revel in those times, but eventually my meal has always settled and my appetite returns and being that I don't have any food stamps or unemployment benefits I am forced to face my reality's, so that is what I do.


I vigorously disagree with you, in that new ideas are constantly being brought to bear on new problems. I do agree that we can be complacent, and I believe that change while uncomfortable for many humans can be a huge motivator.


I agree that our planets resources are finite and therefore that they may limit the population of earth, however I do not agree with your statement that, "there are simply too many people on the planet"



I agree with the basic premise expressed in the preceding thought.

I edited your quote for you, and hope that you find my attempt at humor as funny as I found yours.



I think that I answered your first two questions in my response to FF02. As for your third question I am afraid that I do not have the resources available to me, to attempt to provide you with any meaningful answer, however I do believe that FF02's claim that it is a "fact that there are simply too many people on the planet", to be false to the point of absurdity.

there are plenty of resources... what we are lacking are enough "task forces" to figure out how to tax said resources and still have enough people that still use them...

Tongue in cheek, I hope.