The actual implementation of the Discover Pass has been a little more shocking. Instead of applying to State Parks, it apply's to all land managed by the State of Washington...so, State Parks, Water Access Points(public docks and boat ramps), Heritage Points, trail heads, and 7 Million acres of wilderness.
Historically, when you bought your hunting or fishing license, you received a Vehicle Use Permit, and that cleared you for running around on state land, because we know part of your fishing/hunting license goes to land conservation. If you planned ahead this year, and bought your licenses prior to July 1st, when the Discover Pass went active, then you are lucky, you are grandfathered in until March of 2012. If you didn't plan ahead, then you get to pay for the Discover Pass.
Many hunters and fishers aren't happy about this. They also aren't happy that the Discover Pass is not transferable between vehicles. In some portions of the state, the only roads that lead to some people's house cut through state forest land, so those folks are required to have a Discover Pass for each vehicle, which they think 'is silly'. Many state legislators, 49 of them in fact, agree, and 2 weeks ago they sent a letter to the heads of the States Public Land Management Organizations.
The letter, signed by the very folks that passed the law REQUIRING the Discover Pass, basically asks for the enforcement arms of the different agencies to not enforce the 'non-transferable' portion of the law.
Or, put another way, they have essentially said: We passed a poorly worded law that we didn't think through all the way...PLEASE bail us out by not enforcing the lame parts of a lame law that we passed.'
The article I linked too has two quotes from lawmakers who signed the bill that fired me up.
Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, who said it was "certainly my intent" that the Discover Pass be transferable between vehicles.
The Discover Pass website (discoverpass.wa.gov) says the pass is not transferable -- and that, said state Sen. Christine Rolfes, was not the intent of the legislation's authors. "I would like to see transferability," said Rolfes, who spearheaded the Aug. 12 follow-up letter to the agency directors. "There was one version (of the bill) that allowed transferability, and the final version left transferability open. The real debate happened on the first draft that passed through, and I think it was intentionally left vague'Left intentionally vague, because the lawmakers SUCK. THINK THINGS THROUGH!!!!!! READ WHAT YOU ARE SIGNING. THINK ABOUT HOW GREEDY STATE BUREAUCRACIES ARE GOING TO INTERPRET THINGS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE!
I'm so fricking tired of seeing interviews with lawmakers, AT ALL LEVELS who say 'well, that isn't really what we meant' or, 'the final bill changed just a bit'...STOP SIGNING STUFF WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT MEANS!!!!!!!!!! and then BEGGING state agencies to not enforce the bad parts of what you wrote.