Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/17/2006 7:36:34 PM EDT
HB 2356 will cost Sportsmen and other user’s $10/day to $350/year for use of state public lands.

I just received this alert from Citizens for Washington Wildlife, that HB 2356 is a dangerous and costly bill for anyone who uses public lands for recreation. It is now in the House Judiciary Committee. If passed, it will place a use fee on all public and private land uses.

Sportsmen and other users can not afford to pay a $10 per day or $350 per year fee for using public lands that are already paid for by public funds. These public lands are DNR and other state lands.

Write or call to tell your state house representative that the language “PUBLIC” needs to be removed from this Bill immediately! The public should not have to pay for what they have already paid. This is a tax on taxes!!!

Any “use fee” is unacceptable for use of public lands by Sportsmen, because they currently pay for this use and have done so for many years. Sportsmen pay many additional use and conservation fees. Placing extra fees onto licenses is another unacceptable tax on them.

This land use fee effects many users like those who use public lands for: gathering firewood, hunting, fishing, clam digging; camping, picnicking; swimming, hiking, bicycling, riding horses or other animals, driving off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles, boating and water sports, winter sports, nature study, viewing historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, skateboarding and other non-motorized wheel-based activities, and hang-gliding and paragliding.

Feel free to spread this message around to your family and friends.


PS. The Bill as it applies to private lands fees is fine, but the word “PUBLIC” needs to be removed from HB 2356.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$$$



HB 2356 - DIGEST

Declares that, for purposes of RCW 4.24.210, the following are not fees:



(1) A license or permit issued for statewide use under authority of chapter 79A.05 RCW or Title 77 RCW; and



(2) A daily, seasonal, or annual charge, not to exceed ten dollars per person, per day, and not to exceed three hundred fifty dollars annually per person, for access to publicly or privately owned lands for the purposes of outdoor recreation where all revenues are devoted to land management costs reasonably related to providing the recreational access. Compensable land management costs are limited to:



Road maintenance;

waste removal;

repair and maintenance of gates, signs, trails, and access support facilities;

enforcement presence;

printing of maps and brochures;

and costs of fee collection, if any.

*************************************­**********



Washington State

House of Representatives

Office of Program Research

BILL

ANALYSIS

J­udiciary Committee

HB 2356

Title: An act relating to the liability of owners of recreational land.

Brief Description: Modifying provisions with regard to recreational activities on certain lands.

Sponsors: Representative Williams.

Brief Summary of Bill

• Allows private landowners to charge access fees and still retain immunity for all but intentional harm done to recreational users so long as the fees are used for land management.

Hearing Date: 1/11/06

Staff: Bill Perry (786-7123).



Background:

The Legislature has changed the common law on the liability of landowners for injuries incurred by certain recreational users of land. In specified cases, a statute provides that landowner liability exists only for intentional harm. At common law, on the other hand, a landowner may be liable for unintentionally causing harm through acts of negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness, as well as through intentional acts. A landowner's liability at common law depends in part on the status of the injured party. That is, a landowner's duty to a particular person varies depending on whether the person is, for instance, a trespasser or an invitee. Generally, a landowner's duty to a trespasser is only to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring the person, while the duty owed an invitee is to use ordinary care to keep the property reasonably safe. A statute prescribes a different rule in the case of a landowner who allows members of the public to use his or her land for certain recreational purposes. This statutory provision applies to both private and public landowners. Generally, if a landowner allows the public to use the land for recreational purposes without charge, then the landowner is liable only for injuries that the landowner intentionally causes. This insulation from liability does not apply to an injury caused by a "known dangerous artificial latent condition" when the landowner has not posted conspicuous warning signs. In order for this exception to apply, the landowner must first have had actual knowledge of an artificial condition that is not readily apparent to a recreational user and that presents an unreasonable risk of harm, and then the land owner must have failed to post a warning. The statute insulating landowners from liability applies to "outdoor recreation" including, but not limited to, certain specified activities.



The specified activities are:



• gathering firewood;

• hunting, fishing, clam digging;

• camping, picnicking;

• swimming, hiking, bicycling;

• riding horses or other animals;

• driving off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles;

• boating and water sports;

• winter sports;

• nature study;

• viewing historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites;

• skateboarding and other nonmotorized wheel-based activities; and

• hanggliding and paragliding.



The insulation from liability is generally not available if a fee of any kind is charged to users of the land, except that landowners are specifically allowed to charge a fee of up to $25 for cutting, gathering, and removing firewood. In addition, a license or permit issued for statewide use under the fish and wildlife or recreational lands statutes is not considered a fee for purposes of the recreational use immunity statute.



Summary of Bill:

Public and private land owners are allowed to charge certain land management fees for recreational use of their lands without losing the immunity from liability granted by the Legislature. The fees may not exceed $10 per person per day, or $350 per person per year.



Fees must be used to pay for land management costs reasonably related to providing recreational access to the land. Such costs are limited to:



• road maintenance;

• waste removal;

• fee collection;

• enforcement;

• maps and brochures; and

• repair and maintenance of gates, signs, trails, and access support facilities.



Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Not requested.

Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

House Bill Analysis - 2 - HB 2356
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:52:09 PM EDT
Makes me wonder where the $70+ bucks a year I plunk down for a hunting license goes to.


(Imagine that Strat! PAYING for the privilage to put food on my family's table!!!)


Someone oughtta be here any minnit......yelling MILITIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


My apologies to Reddawg for the hijack-to-be, this bill is some more hippyfag BS.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:23:33 PM EDT
I predict this bill will not make it out of commitee, and if it does, still won't even get a vote on the floor, and will die a quiet death. Just how many sportspersons groups and outdoor user advocates are gonna make sure that this thing never gets anywhere close to a vote on the floor? Damn near all of them.

Now, if it got a section added on to allow motorcycle lane splitting, well,....

No, it's still wrong!hese
Private land owners already have a right to charge a fee for recreational access and control who they allow on their property in that way. Nothing new there. No new laws needed for that.

Welcome to WA Gregoire style.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:48:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 11:53:46 PM EDT by STRATIOTES]
I believe in contributing to a good cause, and game management is a good cause, but I also know the former chief scientist for Washington fish and game and how this state deliberately damages natural resources for a evil political agenda,(which is the classic definition of terrorism).

Life Liberty and property existed before the law and government, men created both to protect Life Liberty and Property, but now instead of the government and the laws the legislature passes being for the protection of Life Liberty and Property, the governent and it's codes "law" are instruments of plunder to rob rape and kill We the People.

Mock God and His laws all you please, but you reap what you sow sooner or later.


We the People of the united states of America, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Big government and the militarized police state is not the best form of government, it is parasitical and doomed to failure as all socialism is eventually.

Several founders stated well "you can NOT write laws better than the Supreme Legislator of the universe" .
American Common Law is based upon holy scripture, especially the new testament, the Bill of Rights was supposed to limit the power of government including the States, to keep the government from getting too big and ensuring the people had the means to reform or abolish it as necessary.

No hunting on the Kings land
No trespassing on the Kings land
Pay tribute to recreate upon the Kings land blah blah blah

It does not have to be this way, there is a solution, the question is how many want to be a part of it ?

Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:45:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Matt45:
Makes me wonder where the $70+ bucks a year I plunk down for a hunting license goes to.


(Imagine that Strat! PAYING for the privilage to put food on my family's table!!!)


Someone oughtta be here any minnit......yelling MILITIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


My apologies to Reddawg for the hijack-to-be, this bill is some more hippyfag BS.



No problem about the "Evil Militia" comment because I happen to be one of those Militia guys and Strat is a good friend of mine! I'm pretty thick skinned so it would take more than this to get me riled up!

Strat asked the right question:
No hunting on the Kings land
No trespassing on the Kings land
Pay tribute to recreate upon the Kings land blah blah blah

It does not have to be this way, there is a solution, the question is how many want to be a part of it ?


More than likely this POS legislation will never make it out of committee and become the law of the "King's Land" however, the dip shit that wrote this tripe should be yanked out of his bed in the middle of the night and Bitch Slapped into the next century!
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:09:02 AM EDT
One young geneltmen from Monroe went up to cedar ponds recenlty to shoot his Glock in the gravel pit there, he was cited by a state agent for shooting in a no shooting zone.

RT from savvysurvivor.com/ was ambushed and arrested after 2-1/2 years of ivestigation and over 50 federal agents, the warrant was issued because of false testimony by a felon in exchange for the accusor to loot RT's place.

They did not have enough to hold RT so the sodomite prison warden assualted RT, RT fought back and is now charged with assault and inciting a riot, as the entire prison population united behind RT and and because of the abuse RT stood up to.

Thats over 50 agents and years of harassment and all they could come up with is false accusations by a convicted felon, RT's business partner was also arrested but was released on bond as opposed to RT who has not had a hearing or trial yet.

America is beset with swarms of officers sent forth to harass the people and eat out their substance, this is not the time for bootlickers to thump their chests and proclaim they will never be a victim of injustice, especially since injustice has struck close to them recently.

Defensive tactics only are resulting in the loss of all rights with no freedom left whatsoever.

Part of common law is punitive damages, the criminal treasonous bureaucrats must be held accountable, the government should fear the people.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson



Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:09:12 AM EDT
arggghhhhh... I don't agree with it, but if it goes through that better be all "sportsmen". From tree huggers and bird watchers, to libtard tree spikers and tree sitters......
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 2:41:38 PM EDT
I have spoken to an assistant of the bill's writer. I feel just a little bit better.

It was originally written to allow private property owners the lawfull oppurtunity to collect fees for entrance onto their land and to hold the property owners harmless if someone that is on their land injures themselves. When I asked about teh authority for the state to also collect money for these same uses, I was told that it was included in order to help pay for maintenance, repair, new projects, etc., just like the bill language says.

I asked if the bill could be changed to require any state agency that collects any of these use fees to give a complete public accounting of what the funds were ultimately used for. The conversation pretty much ended there, with just a bunch of wishy washy "We'll look into that" stuff.

Write your rep's, folks, that is how I got the phone call.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:37:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YOPD:


It was originally written to allow private property owners the lawfull oppurtunity to collect fees for entrance onto their land and to hold the property owners harmless if someone that is on their land injures themselves. When I asked about teh authority for the state to also collect money for these same uses, I was told that it was included in order to help pay for maintenance, repair, new projects, etc., just like the bill language says.

I asked if the bill could be changed to require any state agency that collects any of these use fees to give a complete public accounting of what the funds were ultimately used for. The conversation pretty much ended there, with just a bunch of wishy washy "We'll look into that" stuff.




Not only no, but hell no, never trade liberty for a false promise of limited liability, giving up freedom for the little protection the legislative statute gives results in the total loss of the little private control of property we have left.

The state has NO legislative authority to control private property and exceed their authority when placing unreasonable restrictions upon public lands.

It is the priciple of the thing, giving an inch with this legislation will result in them taking thousands of miles in rights and property.

A little here and a little there leaves no freedom left at all.

Link Posted: 1/18/2006 5:41:12 PM EDT
+1 to what Strat said above. Hell No!
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:08:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Not only no, but hell no, never trade liberty for a false promise of limited liability, giving up freedom for the little protection the legislative statute gives results in the total loss of the little private control of property we have left.

The state has NO legislative authority to control private property and exceed their authority when placing unreasonable restrictions upon public lands.

It is the priciple of the thing, giving an inch with this legislation will result in them taking thousands of miles in rights and property.

A little here and a little there leaves no freedom left at all.



I think you misunderstood the good part of the bill for private landowners. This seems to be an attempt at a statute that will make private landowners harmless if someone comes onto their property for recreation and hurts themselves. A good thing if you allow someone to fish or hunt on your land.

I agree with you about the other fees for public land use, though.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:25:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YOPD:
I think you misunderstood the good part of the bill for private landowners. This seems to be an attempt at a statute that will make private landowners harmless if someone comes onto their property for recreation and hurts themselves. A good thing if you allow someone to fish or hunt on your land.

I agree with you about the other fees for public land use, though.



I understand maxims of law very well, "he who takes the benefit bears the burden" limited liability given by the state to protect the private land owner from any contractual relationship results in the loss of private property rights of the land owner.

Do you understand the injustice of legislative statute ? and how any judge applying the letter of the law commits murder by doing so ?

This nation established American common law, where a jury judges both the facts and the LAW and renders justice according to the spirit of the law and not the letter.

The letter of the law has no mind and no mercy, it is unintelligent being deaf dumb and blind it is impossible for it to render justice, do not fall for the trickery, deciet and fraudulent magic of legislative statuatory law and dumb judges.



Link Posted: 1/18/2006 11:10:55 PM EDT

Mock God and His laws all you please, but you reap what you sow sooner or later.


The only thing I'm mocking is your over-the-top approach. You're too much sometimes and your replies predictable, for me, that's a source of mild amusment.

However- I do agree with your basic common thread that more and more, we ARE being pushed into a corner, and one day will have to come out swinging. I just don't think we're that close yet Strat.

I'm not sure I understand the private property angle though, why is there a need for the State to entangle itself in private dealings such as a farmer letting a guy hunt pheasant in his fields? (Ooops-Taxation and revenue!)
ANY way this bill is written, it just sounds like the encroachment of Gov't where it need not be and another example of the "monster" the libs created getting out of control.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:44:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Matt45:

Mock God and His laws all you please, but you reap what you sow sooner or later.


The only thing I'm mocking is your over-the-top approach.You're too much sometimes and your replies predictable, for me, that's a source of mild amusment.

However- I do agree with your basic common thread that more and more, we ARE being pushed into a corner, and one day will have to come out swinging. I just don't think we're that close yet Strat.

I'm not sure I understand the private property angle though, why is there a need for the State to entangle itself in private dealings such as a farmer letting a guy hunt pheasant in his fields? (Ooops-Taxation and revenue!)
ANY way this bill is written, it just sounds like the encroachment of Gov't where it need not be and another example of the "monster" the libs created getting out of control.




This is where we fail to communicate, when you read where I advocate organized force, A Well Regulated Militia you see it as a proposal of inevitable violence, I do not !

There has been small incidences where overwhelming militia force has assembled and diffused the situation, (sage brush rebellion 4ex) the display without firering a sidearm has frustrated many crimes (display of force) only in 1 to 2% is the firearm discharged during the frustration of a crime, in most cases the credible show of force is sufficient, but it must be credible and under the civil authority according to the common law.

You or any individual has a right to self defense, and any community also has a right to self defense and if any member of a community is damaged/injured unjustly, it is a injury to the whole community, the right of the individual is everybodies rights.

The common law provides a remedy for every injury, the militia is common law force, doesn't have to be called militia, constable is one name and peace officer is another, he is commissioned, sworn and bonded and can deputize as many officers as necessary to execute the judgement or warrant or defense of the community.


People have the natural right, recognized in the First Amendment, to peaceably assemble, subject only to the property rights of the owner of the property on which the assembly takes place. Since they also have the right to keep and bear arms, and since any rights which may be exercised separately may be exercised in combination, then they have the natural right to assemble as a militia, bearing arms, and to organize and train, provided that they do not otherwise commit any offenses against innocent persons. States may have some authority to regulate the operations of select militias, but not to prohibit them on the grounds that they might commit some offense against an innocent person. Furthermore, if a militia musters in response to a public notice, it is a true militia, and has a special status under common and constitutional law, with the right to ignore private property rights when necessary to conduct military operations. Such a true militia takes on the character of a convention of the whole of the community, and as such is superior to all governmental authorities of that jurisdiction, with the power to replace officials and re-organize governmental institutions, subject to ratification by a general vote. In a republican form of government, direct democracy is not the norm, but the people may have to resort to it temporarily if republican institutions fail to serve them.



I do not advocate violence, I do advocate the use of force when necessary to enforce the law, the "just use" of force, so in most cases when the force is credible and according to the law, actual harm is avoided.

Peace through power is just when it is according to the common law.

The bill that is the topic of this thread is wrong at every level, the bill it's self is unlawful criminal legislation, the government is assuming powers and authority it is NOT delegated, and against the health and welfare of the people.

If the government means to do you or me harm, we have every right to frustrate that crime ! Now here is where we don't see eye to eye, the maxim of common law is ; an injury of a individual by the state is an injury to all !

The war against the people by the state already started, we already do not enjoy a single protection of a right gauranteed by the bill of rights from govenment infringement, while all ten planks of the communist manifesto are being enforced.

Advocating the restoration of the constitution and the rule of law is not over-the-top even advocating the just use of force is not over-the-top.

How is it ok for Americans to die fighting for Iraqi freedom and yet it is not ok to die fighting for American freedom ?


War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill


That quote is from the civil war, a war that was the northern states forcing the southen states to pay the debts of the northern states, it was a war over states rights whether a state could be forced to pay for something against their will, there was more than one kind of slavery at issue in that war and now we have another instance where the state says we must pay against our will, who is the slave and who is the master ?

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 6:30:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:24:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OdT:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. -- Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).



Link Posted: 1/19/2006 4:00:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 4:15:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OdT:


Silence is often misinterpreted, but never misquoted.



Silence is consent
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 4:28:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 4:39:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By OdT:


Silence is often misinterpreted, but never misquoted.



Silence is consent



Well hells bells, he didn't say to not shave his eyebrow nor did he say to not post the photos on the internet therefore by your reasoning both must have been perfectly fine with him; and having had that consent given by his silence no one else had standing to protest either of those deeds.


Top Top