Seattle elitists seek to ban beach driving

Check out the front page headline in today's TNT: "Beach driving ban sought"

Seems the big-city crowd is tired of seeing those of us not fortunate enough to own beach-front property use their privately co-opted public resourse: "A proposal from Seattle-area lawmakers to ban the time-honored practice of driving on state beaches has represenatives of coastal communities frothing like storm-driven surf." Clueless suburbanites once again have their blue noses out of joint: "That [our insensitive intrusion on their seclusion] disturbs many people who come to the beach seeking tranquility and relaxation, only to find rumbling pickup trucks and miles of tire-tread ruts." The proposal is supported by the usual cast of characters, like bird watchers. WELL EXCUSE THE EVERLOVIN' SNOWY PLOVER [Bleeeeep!] OUT OF ME!!!! I'd like to shove my clam shovel sideways up their collective a$$es. But they might just enjoy that too much.

I certainly hope that the legislators from the non-consumptive use averse districts have enough collective juice to send this proposal back to perdition, where it belongs.

I support no driving on beaches, dirtbikes,jet skiis,snomobiles,sleds etc. on public land or waterways exept where designated.
sleds only in big waterways like the columbia, lower reaches of the Skagit etc. We have plenty of roads and freeways for all the noise.

TheKing,

These are "designated" areas. The beaches we're talking about are part of the state highway system. Just like the paved highway system, you'll always find a few jerks. But you can't pass a new law every time a few jerks excite public attention.

Besides, if you enjoy razor clamming, and thousands of people do, then you need to drive on the beach.

I'm from the Seattle area, but I sure don't own any beachfront property. In general I'm against beach driving, except during razor clam seasons, and I also think there should be some allowance for older and disabled people. Other than that, cars and trucks and idiots doing brodies ruin the ocean beach experience for me.

i see no problem with people driving on the beach. same with dirtbikers/4x4 people. as long as they play by the rules(e.g. don't go around destroying some fragile meadow or driving on the clam beds) there's no problem. it's the few idiots in every crowd that manage to get people's recreation banned. for some reason, outdoor activities that don't involve hiking or kayaking are easy targets for the scum who wants to do away with them

Scum? Same to you chum.

I agree with the access for the disabled and elderly. Everyone else can hike.

Unless it is proven that driving on the beach is having a sustantial impact on the wildlife on said beaches either from pollution or the sheer weight of the vehicle. I say keep them open.

If it was my choice to go to the beach just for the scenery, ocean shores is the last place I would go. Not because of the cars on the beach, but the fact that it is an ugly beach. (dirty water, dead birds, flotsam and jetsam and that friggen wind) Drive north a few miles to kalaloch or south to long beach if you want a true beach experience... IMO far better beaches!

Theking,

Have you ever been down for razor clamming? What do you have to say about the extremely limited parking and the distance to the beaches? Do you really think that it's practical for this activity to say that "everyone else can hike"? Can you immagine cramming all those people who spread out with vehicles into the first several hundred yards of the accesses?

An entirely different question is the local economies of the businesses along the clam beaches. I immagine they depend pretty heavily on the crowds who enjoy the clamming. If people have to walk the miles they drive on the beach to get to their favorite clamming spots, I doubt they would continue coming down. And the clamming on the immediately accessible areas on either side of the accesses would be wiped out after one season, so who's going to come?

Besides, it's just fun to drive on the beach. It's a treat. It's something you can do with the family that is relatively unique. If it's solitude you want, Washington has it in abundance. There are vast stretches of undeveloped beach where the only access is by foot. These areas are truely unique and I would never even hint that anything like a vehicle be allowed on those beaches - only hikers, campers, shadows and footprints.

There is absolutely no need to drive on the beaches when we can build roads. A small tax levy of say 250/1000 on property owners there should handle it.

Besides. We really don't know what damage all these cars and trucks do. We need to study this for a couple of decades before we are so foolish as to allow vehicles on what might be critical habitat.

All I have to say is that it really worried me this past summer to see cars zooming down the beach when there are little kids around. Its a little weird to have an area that is both a sand box and a freeway. The cars drive on the hard sand right next to the surf. The same place my 2 year old and his nieces like to play. The whole weekend I felt fild like Wayne's World when they were playing hockey in the street: "Car"...pick up gear/children...car goes by...reset.

Life is pretty scary isn't it!

I see this argument kind of like moving into an area that has a MX track and wanting them to be quiet. Or, moving right next to a gun range and wanting the gun range to shut down because it isn't safe. It doesn't matter if there is another option for them or not...at least to them it doesn't.

If you don't like people driving on beaches, go to a section of the beach that isn't accessible by car. It's not like sections like that aren't available in the general area.

As far as safety is concerned, again, it is the individual's choice. If I don't want to be hit by a car, then I should stay in a safe environment. I shouldn't expect to be able to go wherever I want and make the people who already using it adapt to my ideals.

Those are really poor analogies jimh but your point that there are areas for cars and other areas for no cars is a very good one, and should (but won't) put this thread to a rest. If people don't like it...go somewhere else. You can bet I won't take my family down there next summer.

So when is the proposal to prohibit building homes along the beach going to committee?

I mean, when I'm driving down the beach I don't want my experience ruined by seeing beachfront homes.

Having never driven on the beaches, or gone clamming, perhaps my opinion won't mean diddly......but I would like to share it all the same.

Is there a possibility of some happy medium? Sometimes a compromise stinks, but it is far better than having everyone go away with nothing.

Protected beaches should be just that...protected. Motorized vehilcles don't belong there, IMO. I hear the same about closed access forest areas. Some guys want to run their 4-wheel ATV's into closed areas to hunt and assist with removing downed game (like elk), but, rules are rules and they are there for a reason. But open beaches and forest areas are a definate need, as well.

Some areas of forest have the "green dot" system. Perhaps they could engage something along those lines with the beaches, with enforced speed regualtions, etc. and allowed access at differing times of the year?

If the currently [vehicle] accessible beaches get closed to vehicle access, then parking is going to be the next major issue for those homeowners. Those willing to walk must park somewhere, and then the issue of tresspassing though private property to gain easier access (walking) to the better areas is going to rear its head.

It's a slippery slope...property owners controlling access to public beaches, strictly by right of land ownership that locks users out of the "public" areas.

One thought is to get the interested parties together and hammer out a negotiated settlement is a good one...but sadly, with the jillion levels of bureaucracy in our most liberal of states, that will never happen. Could it?

People that own the property have rights..and so does the public that foots the bill for the maintenance of those lands. In order to "keep the peace" the courts will side with the private property owners and the "public" will get double screwed...

WE (us) will no longer have access to the areas (tresspassing, no parking, etc) AND we will still be paying the taxes to manage the no longer accessible public land.

If it can be done, my suggestion is to find a way (somewhere over the rainbow?) to get a negotiated settlement that can partially satisfy all parties.

Mike (the ultimate optimist) B

Tdodge,

Been going there since I wass born, 45 years now. Take my kids now as well. I have never driven on the beach except to park where the road ends and the signs say no driving beyond. Usually use walk in access where we camp. Never had any issue getting clams.

It's an asthetic thing for me. I like to go places and not hear the roar of motors and smell the fumes. They are getting fewer and far between with the quads and jet skiis . Try cutting a Christmas tree anymore without the snowmobiles whining in the back ground.

I don't know if we should give up any of our access to the beaches. Bill, your point is well taken. If we can't drive on these beaches, then we are giving up miles and miles of access to public land and the public beaches will become the private domains of ocean-front homeowners, except for the hearty and healthy few in the prime of their lives who care to trek. This effectively limits the old, the infirm, the very young and families with small children, all of whom will be effectively restricted to the several hundred yards on either side of the the accesses, if they can find a parking spot in the paved lot.

I totally agree with SciGuy. Washington is already blessed with the diversity we need. For those who want solitude, the northern beaches afford, I think, the longest continuous stretch of undeveloped white sand beaches in the whole country. You can walk for days on those beaches and not see another person. I don't believe the National Park allows driving on the beach. I am sure there are other sections of beach where vehicles are not allowed. And although the beaches directly adjacent to the current beach accesses are no doubt heavily traveled in good weather, by driving a little further you can separate yourself from constant, or even frequent traffic. So chose a location that fits what you are after in a beach experience. Its not difficult; in fact, it's easy.

Theking, thanks for the response. I completely agree with you that a scene without vehicles beats a parking lot every time. But this is not a new use in the history of the Washington beaches. So far as I know, vehicle travel on the beaches has been around all my life. No doubt it is more crowded now than ever. I completely respect your response and your point of view. I just do not see a way to spread out the clam diggers without allowing driving.

I have no sympathy for beachfront homeowners who do not like the fact that designated beaches are part of the state highway system. These beaches are just as much and as well-known a part of the highway system as any paved county road. I can't fathom a property owner who bought property on one of these beaches without knowing this fact. I've never encountered a public beach access where driving was allowed that didn't post this fact.

However, if I read the TNT article correctly, one of the legislators who is sponsoring this bill is quoted as saying he didn't even know that traffic was allowed on beaches in Washington. What business does a legislator have in sponsoring such a bill if he is so unfamiliar with the Washington coast? If he doesn't know that driving on the beach is a "time-honored tradition" in Washington State, what do you think he knows of any of the local economic issues for those beach communities that depend on the traffic? And what do you think he knows about all the unintended consequences to those already depressed communities that would result from the proposed legislation? I think he knows and cares nothing, beyond what one of his undoubtedly rich and influential constituents complained of - that is, being "upset" that he/she had his/her tranquility intruded upon while lounging on his/her seaside deck by a "time-honored," pre-existing and completely lawful use of public land.

OK Plunk that was funny

If the poeple sponsering this are the people living on the beachfront property, a study may be a good idea. I would bet the vast majority of damage to the sensitive areas has been done by home and business owners. Not vehicles driving on the beach.

Where does the insanity end?

I hope everyone supporting the ban puts a sign in thier yard, that way i'll know where to aim my fireworks next year.

Dan S.....too funny. I agree.

HOUSE BILL 2302
_____________________________________________

State of Washington 58th Legislature 2004 Regular Session

By Representatives O'Brien, Upthegrove, McCoy, Darneille, Lovick,
Schual-Berke, Chase, McDermott, Kagi and Hudgins

Prefiled 12/23/2003. Read first time 01/12/2004. Referred to
Committee on Fisheries, Ecology & Parks.


AN ACT Relating to vehicular traffic on beaches; amending RCW 79A.05.650
and 79A.05.655; repealing RCW 79A.05.693; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 79A.05.650 and 2000 c 11 s 54 are each amended to read as
follows:
(({- (1) -})) Except as provided in RCW 79A.05.655 and 79A.05.660, (({- a
total of forty percent of the length of the beach subject to the recreation
management plan shall be -})) {+ all ocean beaches are +} reserved for
pedestrian use (({- under this section and RCW 79A.05.665. Restrictions on
motorized traffic under this section shall be from April 15th to the day
following Labor day of each year. Local jurisdictions may adopt provisions
within recreation management plans that exceed the requirements of this section.
The commission shall not require that a plan designate for pedestrian use more
than forty percent of the land subject to the plan.
(2) In designating areas to be reserved for pedestrian use, the plan shall
consider the following:
(a) Public safety;
(b) Statewide interest in recreational use of the ocean beaches;
(c) Protection of shorebird and marine mammal habitats;
(d) Preservation of native beach vegetation;
(e) Protection of sand dune topography;
(f) Prudent management of clam beds;
(g) Economic impacts to the local community; and
(h) Public access and parking availability -})) {+ and vehicular traffic
is prohibited +}.

Sec. 2. RCW 79A.05.655 and 2000 c 11 s 55 are each amended to read as
follows:
Notwithstanding RCW 79A.05.650(({- (1) -})), recreation management plans
may make provision for vehicular traffic on areas otherwise reserved for
pedestrian use in order to:
(1) (({- Facilitate clam digging;
(2) Accommodate organized recreational events of not more than seven
consecutive days duration;
(3) -})) Provide for removal of wood debris under RCW 4.24.210 and
79A.05.035(5); and
(({- (4) -})) {+ (2) +} Accommodate removal of sand located upland from the
Seashore Conservation Area or removal of sand within the Seashore Conservation
Area under the terms of a covenant, easement, or deed.

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 3. RCW 79A.05.693 (Ocean beaches in Seashore
Conservation Area declared public highways) and 2000 c 11 s 58 & 1988 c 75 s 14
are each repealed.

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 4. This act takes effect July 1, 2004.



O'Brien - 1 - Bothell/Maltby/MontlakeTerrace
Upthegrove - 33 - SeaTac/DesMoines/Kent
McCoy - 38 - Marysville/Everett
Darnielle - 27 - Tacoma/Fife
Lovick - 44 - Lake Stevens/Snohomish/MillCreek
Schual-Berke - 33 - SeaTac/Kent
Chase - 32 - Edmonds/Kenmore
McDermott - 34 - Weast Seattle/Burien/Vashon
Kagi - 32 - Edmonds/Kenmore
Hudgins - 11 - Tukwila/Renton

Everyone likes to make Seattle an easy target, which it usually is, but this article is off the mark. Notice that reps actually from Seattle, dist 43 & 46, are not listed while Tacoma's own Rep Jeannie Darneille is a sponsor. This is just more kneejerk crap from domesticated suburbia. Anyway, I think the laws on the books are appropriate. HR 2302 won't make it out of committee and is just filler for their enviro mailers come election time. One hopes. Update: Uhoh, I just noticed that Obrian is on the Fisheries, Ecology, and Parks committee.