Northwest Fishing Reports

House Bill 2342 introduced today by Rep Haler would require state and local agencies that own lands that are one-quarter square miles or less in size adjacent to a body of water must provide adequate public parking. If parking is not provided then using that land to access the water is prohibited and you will face misdemeanor charges.

(1) If a parcel of public land is one-quarter of a square mile or less in size and is adjacent to a body of public water and the land is or can be used to access the body of public water, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must provide adequate public parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water.
(2) If adequate public parking is not provided, using the land to access the water for other than a governmental purpose is prohibited. If adequate public parking is not provided, the governmental entity which has jurisdiction of the land must post a warning sign for the public that clearly shows that using the land to access the water is prohibited and states the sanction for a violation of the prohibition.
(3) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/defau ... &year=2013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Thoughts??

Sounds like BS to me. If it's public land then why the hell wouldn't one be able to use it to access public water?

I see you can comment on this bill. I just did so and encourage others to do so as well.

My reply (I tried to keep it short and clear):

To Whom It May Concern, I highly oppose this bill. Accessing public waterways via public land should in no way be restricted by parking regulations. Removing public water access severely limits those who do not need/use public parking (i.e. pedestrians and bicyclists) and is unfair to those who seek recreational access (fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, etc.) to water bodies in a state with ever decreasing public water access. Public land, regardless of size, boardering public waters should remain public access to the public water they boarder. In my opinion, this bill contradicts the definition of public land use by limiting access/recreation to some, not all.

It means that there would be no accessing the river from bridges among a lot of other things. The places that you park on the street and walk into would be shut down. The government doesn't have enough money to build a parking lot at every fishing hole. I don't see how this could be passed though.

natetreat wrote:It means that there would be no accessing the river from bridges among a lot of other things. The places that you park on the street and walk into would be shut down. The government doesn't have enough money to build a parking lot at every fishing hole. I don't see how this could be passed though.

An example (I am guessing) - parking on the side of Hwy 2 to fish the Wallace under the bridge.

Gringo Pescador wrote:

natetreat wrote:It means that there would be no accessing the river from bridges among a lot of other things. The places that you park on the street and walk into would be shut down. The government doesn't have enough money to build a parking lot at every fishing hole. I don't see how this could be passed though.

An example (I am guessing) - parking on the side of Hwy 2 to fish the Wallace under the bridge.

there was parking there and they put up a barricade

Exactly. I imagine that "adequate" parking would be the key definition. If the makeshift parking on the highway side of Rieter wasn't "adequate" because it's not paved or marked, that could be a shut down. It isn't going to go anywhere, I'd never heard of it. It's probably something in committee or something and will be DOA.

What are they smoking!!! How do they come up with this crap anyway I can see it now $25 park on the side of the road pass.....

bassplayer17 wrote:What are they smoking!!! How do they come up with this crap anyway I can see it now $25 park on the side of the road pass.....

yup, just like $50 for Invasive Species stickers for each county. These legislators have way too much time on their hands.

Mike Carey wrote:

bassplayer17 wrote:What are they smoking!!! How do they come up with this crap anyway I can see it now $25 park on the side of the road pass.....

yup, just like
$50 for Invasive Species stickers for each county.
These legislators have way too much time on their hands.

Woe woe woe, big fella!!!!!!!! What did I miss?

MarkFromSea wrote:

Mike Carey wrote:

bassplayer17 wrote:What are they smoking!!! How do they come up with this crap anyway I can see it now $25 park on the side of the road pass.....

yup, just like
$50 for Invasive Species stickers for each county.
These legislators have way too much time on their hands.

Woe woe woe, big fella!!!!!!!! What did I miss?

That's started in Whatcom County, but I highly doubt the other counties will honor it if they decide to push through the same type of ordinance; meaning, of course, a different sticker for a different county.

Mike might have been facetious with his comment (or maybe not) but either way, I could see it happening. Especially in this state.

Yes, that was a bit of a worst case scenario on my part. I'm sure we will all watch with interest if another county jumps on the AIS bandwagon.

This type of stuff kind of defeats the idea to form a committee to promote and increase participation in fishing.

It seems we get to pay more and get less every year.
If things keep going as they have been, we will only be launching at WDFW sites and paying dearly for it.

YellowBear wrote:It seems we get to pay more and get less every year.
If things keep going as they have been, we will only be launching at WDFW sites and paying dearly for it.

You are right, and as the trend has been for a long time now THEY want complete control and civilized parking and access. Have you ever noticed how roads are gated of in NF lands of other publicly owned property? If the governing powers have their way we will be watching outdoor activities on the TV because it will be dangerous and dirty to go outside to play...and/or some group will be offened by what other do outdoors for recreation

OK, I sent in my comment (using some of your very good points):

BILL: 2342 (Oppose)
MESSAGE: To Whom It May Concern, I oppose this bill. Public use of our waterways is a cherished right of citizens in this state. Accessing public waterways via public land should in no way be restricted by parking regulations. This is discriminatory to people who drive to their destinations. Removing public water access severely limits those who do not need/use public parking (i.e. pedestrians and bicyclists) and is unfair to those who seek recreational access (fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, etc.) to water bodies in a state with ever decreasing public water access. Limiting access to Public land defeats WDFW's goal to promote and increase participation in fishing. As a citizen of this state, It seems we pay more and get less every year. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Mike Carey
RESPONSE: You have requested a response from Sen. Rodney Tom, Rep. Ross Hunter, and Rep. Cyrus Habib


Also requested a response. It's important to make them (their staffers) be responsive to our concerns. I encourage everyone to take a couple minutes and comment. Here's the link again:

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/defau ... &year=2013 The "Comment on this bill" link is on the upper right side, green button link.

I sent a letter to my reps... this is the response i got... hopefully it helps...



Thank you for your comments, I'll be sure Senator Conway sees them. I will also forward your comments to Reps. Kirby & Sawyer, since this is a House of Reps. Bill.

Most sincerely,
Kimberlie Lelli
Sr. Legislative Assistant
Senator Steve Conway, 29th LD