Washington State Parks

[+crouchcrew]

As of July 1, the “Discover Pass” will be required for vehicles entering into recreation lands and water-access sites managed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

 

This includes boat launches, campgrounds, wildlife and natural areas, trails and state parks. The pass will cost $30 a year per vehicle or $10 for a day-use pass.

 

For details, visit www.discoverpass.wa.gov.

[+klossner]

I spent $100 for a Washington and Oregon Recreation Pass so I could use state parks. According to the WTA FAQ, I was a chump.

[+B+L]

I spent $100 for a Washington and Oregon Recreation Pass so I could use state parks. According to the WTA FAQ, I was a chump.

I don't think that pass was good for anything but boat ramp and poop pumping passes in Washington State Parks. It's always been a better deal for Oregonians, so most of the chumps are to your north.

[+LandRover]

The last time Washington State had the State Parks Pass requirement I bought one and about two months later they dropped the requirement, talk about a waste of money.

[jholly]

Sigh, I gave them $5 on each vehicle. Guess next year I'll just opt out and forget about state parks.

[+B+L]

Sigh, I gave them $5 on each vehicle. Guess next year I'll just opt out and forget about state parks.

That $5 opt-in is still going to be available. I'm really not a fan of the new pass being tied to a single vehicle. And I'm also beginning to wonder if we have reached the point where the accumulated value of the all the passes has turned our vehicles into tweaker cash machines.

[jholly]

Sigh, I gave them $5 on each vehicle. Guess next year I'll just opt out and forget about state parks.

That $5 opt-in is still going to be available. I'm really not a fan of the new pass being tied to a single vehicle. And I'm also beginning to wonder if we have reached the point where the accumulated value of the all the passes has turned our vehicles into tweaker cash machines.

The $30 pass would be a lot more easier to justify if it was not tied to a particular car. I mean, if I pay $30 for a pass what difference does it make if we go in my car or my friends car? They got their $30. So probably the choice will be a county park or a NPS/NFS where my old farts card works for any car and three other people in the car. I bet they are not going to get the revenue they think they are going to get.

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

i did not tell you this secret bit of information but Scotch Magic Tape with a small corner tucked under is easily removed from any object. If one was to use a Sharpie to write the Plate number on that tape, then later remove said tape and new tape applied. OOPS... I never said any of this nor did I type this.... That's my story and I'm sticking to it.... I know Nothing...

[+uxorious]

I will probably just give up on state parks, as long as the fee is tied to one vehicle. I have three I use, and I still haven't figured out how to drive all three at one time. It really seems a waste to buy a pass then not be able to use it because I'm in the wrong car.

[+B+L]

i did not tell you this secret bit of information but Scotch Magic Tape with a small corner tucked under is easily removed from any object.

Good thing you're just kidding, because we know you would never expect other people to subsidize your recreational activities.

[+crouchcrew]

Also, anyone with a disability pass now for camping, etc. is exempt from having to pay for the new pass.

 

I think by "one car" they mean that it is a hang tag with a pass. Much like the WDFW Vehicle Use Permit. So, you really can switch it easily from car to car.

[+Kiersolvd]

I think by "one car" they mean that it is a hang tag with a pass. Much like the WDFW Vehicle Use Permit. So, you really can switch it easily from car to car.

 

That is not quite correct. According to the WTA FAQ

 

Q: Will the Discover Pass transferable between vehicles?

 

A: No. The Discover Pass would have room for one license plate number. If you would be taking two vehicles, you would need two passes.

[+Kiersolvd]

btw, this is much better than the original proposal by the legislature which would have required a permit for each person at a much higher rate. WTA did a good job in bringing in a little more sanity to the situation even at the "one pass per license plate" it now is.

[+Shop99er]

This was a failure a few years ago when it was $5. Do they really think 10 or 30 is going to work better?

 

Guess I'm done with state parks for a while.

[+sword fern]

Ughhh... Just placed cache in a wa state park this year. Have no intention on paying $$$ for maintaining it so I guess i might archive it soon.

[+B+L]

This was a failure a few years ago when it was $5. Do they really think 10 or 30 is going to work better?

 

Guess I'm done with state parks for a while.

it's not just the parks this time. Plus, the state parks only encompass about 120,00 acres of land compared to 2.2 million acres of DNR land another 806,700 acres of WDFW land. That's a lot of land to start avoiding.

 

News to us, but apparently Washington was the only state in the West not imposing day-use fees in at least some of the parks. The last time a park fee was imposed, usage dropped by 15%. It will be interesting to see what the effect is this time.

 

[+ironman114]

For all those saying they are going to write off State Parks do you realize this is to drive on ANY STATE LAND MANAGED BY THE DNR that isn't a road maintained with highway or county dollars.

 

You would need a pass to go after any cache in the Capitol State Forest west of Olympia. I have a map of all state managed lands in color code. There is a lot of state land out there you now need a pass for!

 

 

edit: It looks like B+L posted while I was reading this thread and formulating my response. Thanks for adding the acreages.

Edited May 19, 2011 by ironman114

[+uxorious]

For all those saying they are going to write off State Parks do you realize this is to drive on ANY STATE LAND MANAGED BY THE DNR that isn't a road maintained with highway or county dollars.

 

You would need a pass to go after any cache in the Capitol State Forest west of Olympia. I have a map of all state managed lands in color code. There is a lot of state land out there you now need a pass for!

 

 

edit: It looks like B+L posted while I was reading this thread and formulating my response. Thanks for adding the acreages.

 

While I don't like the idea of more taxes to use state lands, I would buy one of these passes if I could use it in all of my vehicles. However, as long as the money grabbers in Olympia expect me to buy three passes for three cars, I'm out. There are plenty of other areas I can play in. I do like the Capitol Forest area, but if I never go there again it would not be the end of the world.

 

I have a pass for the public fishing areas, but it seems most of the time I go near one to find a cache, I'm in the wrong vehicle, and have to take a chance to run in grab the cache and get out. It would be much harder to get around this new attempt at getting into my pockets.

[+sword fern]

This was a failure a few years ago when it was $5. Do they really think 10 or 30 is going to work better?

 

Guess I'm done with state parks for a while.

 

News to us, but apparently Washington was the only state in the West not imposing day-use fees in at least some of the parks. The last time a park fee was imposed, usage dropped by 15%. It will be interesting to see what the effect is this time.

 

Wa state has overseen a chance to be the only state to not impose day-use fees. Be unique, washington! Don't copy others!

[+TotemLake]

This was a failure a few years ago when it was $5. Do they really think 10 or 30 is going to work better?

 

Guess I'm done with state parks for a while.

 

News to us, but apparently Washington was the only state in the West not imposing day-use fees in at least some of the parks. The last time a park fee was imposed, usage dropped by 15%. It will be interesting to see what the effect is this time.

 

Wa state has overseen a chance to be the only state to not impose day-use fees. Be unique, washington! Don't copy others!

Any comments or attempts to change the policy now is too late. The time for public to comment and sway opinion ended last week. WTA did an outstanding job as an advocate for affordable usage bringing it down from the original concept to what it is now.

 

My HOTMs will still continue to use these lands. I pay the extra fee on my tabs to support the state park system as well as pay for the NWFP. I will also be paying this fee. Everytime I use those trails and get to see the natural wonders nature has to offer, I consider it a small price to pony up to support the access and upkeep. I guess the group sizes are going to be a little smaller these coming days.

 

Btw, I also paid the usage fee a few years back when and where the gates were open.

Edited May 20, 2011 by TotemLake

[+Hoddevik]

I hated when they had the $5 a day / $50 a year pass years back .... my wife and I have two kids and one of the things we loved was visiting state parks. While that might not seem like a lot of money to some, it cut us off at the time due to health bills etc. I really wonder how much it may reduce tourism also. I am not positive but I think the old $50 a year state park pass was good for two vehicles? I guess it doesn't matter at this point, but I sure hate to see access restricted to state parks with these fees.

[+LandRover]

I may not like it but I will be buying a pass, but I won't continue to pay the $5.00 for my 4 vehicles that I license every year so in the end the pass will only be costing me $10 more than I already pay. I wonder how many people that are paying the $5.00 already will stop paying it as well as not buy the new pass, net loss for the State, hmmmmm.

[jholly]

I may not like it but I will be buying a pass, but I won't continue to pay the $5.00 for my 4 vehicles that I license every year so in the end the pass will only be costing me $10 more than I already pay. I wonder how many people that are paying the $5.00 already will stop paying it as well as not buy the new pass, net loss for the State, hmmmmm.

I know I won't be kicking in the $5 on the tags for my two cars. The pass is highly doubtful, to many other places to go.

[+AndrewRJ]

Well for me, I always used to buy the Fish and Wildlife Parking Pass as there are a lot of those areas near me, also I will start opting out of the state parks fee on my wife's car and my own so that was combined $22 a year. So this new pass will really only be a hit of $8 a year for me and the added benefit of its a year from time of purchase not April 1 to April 1 like the Fish an Wildlife parking pass was.

 

Also here is the distribution breakdown

DNR would receive 8% of the revenue, WDFW another 8%, and the balance - 84% - would go to State Parks. The legislature projects that pass revenues will total around $65 million per biennium. If the revenue exceeds $71 million, the excess revenue will be split equally among agencies. The agencies may only use this revenue for operating public use and recreational facilities, including trails.

 

May not like it, but I will pay it, pros out weigh the cons for me.

[+klossner]

Washington was the only state in the West not imposing day-use fees in at least some of the parks.

For comparison, Oregon has 187 state parks. 25 of them charge a fee of $5/day. An annual pass costs $30 and can be transferred among vehicles.

[+Lightning Jeff]

What really bugs me about this is that the state lands I use the most are entirely undeveloped, with not so much as developed parking areas or law enforcement patrols to ensure cars aren't being broken into. I'm talking about DNR land where all of the existing facilities (roads and gates - and that's it!) have already been paid for, I assume, by logging. The fee will buy nothing - DNR will not add user amenities to these areas. And seeing as how I've never seen a DNR vehicle on the lands I'm talking about, if they do patrol the lands for violators of the permit requirement, that will be the only thing the permit is buying - enforcement of the permit requirement! More likely is they won't patrol even for that purpose, as they don't now, and the only people who will buy the permit so they can use these lands will be suckers. The majority of users will simply ignore the requirement. (And really, most of the foregoing probably also applies to state parks.)

[+TotemLake]

What really bugs me about this is that the state lands I use the most are entirely undeveloped, with not so much as developed parking areas or law enforcement patrols to ensure cars aren't being broken into. I'm talking about DNR land where all of the existing facilities (roads and gates - and that's it!) have already been paid for, I assume, by logging. The fee will buy nothing - DNR will not add user amenities to these areas. And seeing as how I've never seen a DNR vehicle on the lands I'm talking about, if they do patrol the lands for violators of the permit requirement, that will be the only thing the permit is buying - enforcement of the permit requirement! More likely is they won't patrol even for that purpose, as they don't now, and the only people who will buy the permit so they can use these lands will be suckers. The majority of users will simply ignore the requirement. (And really, most of the foregoing probably also applies to state parks.)

So rebel or be a sucker? I don't consider myself to be a sucker and I think your opinion went over the top about those that choose to pay the fee. For me, it's the matter of bad luck always looking out for me. Chances are if I don't pay the fee, I'll be ticketed the $124 for not having it. It's far cheaper to pay the $30 for the year and not take the chance. Just because you haven't seen them patrol doesn't mean they don't. That's like saying trees don't make a sound when they fall cuz you weren't there to hear it.

Edited May 22, 2011 by TotemLake

[+Lightning Jeff]

So rebel or be a sucker? I don't consider myself to be a sucker and I think your opinion went over the top about those that choose to pay the fee. For me, it's the matter of bad luck always looking out for me. Chances are if I don't pay the fee, I'll be ticketed the $124 for not having it. It's far cheaper to pay the $30 for the year and not take the chance. Just because you haven't seen them patrol doesn't mean they don't. That's like saying trees don't make a sound when they fall cuz you weren't there to hear it.

I wasn't trying to be derisive in my description of those who pay. I pay. I always paid the prior state parks fee, and did indeed feel like a sucker when I was the only one in a crowded parking lot to do so. I know I'll be in a tiny fractional minority when I pay to park just out of a ditch in the Marckworth State Forest. When no one else pays, I'll again feel like a chump. And yeah, I think I can bank on no enforcement there. I'm not advocating violating the law; I can't. I do wish they had excluded lands that they have no intention of patrolling, instead of lumping everything together. (What the hell am I even buying for my permit fee out in the Marckworth? There literally is no maintenance or other benefit to pay for.)

Edited May 22, 2011 by Lightning Jeff

[+TotemLake]

So rebel or be a sucker? I don't consider myself to be a sucker and I think your opinion went over the top about those that choose to pay the fee. For me, it's the matter of bad luck always looking out for me. Chances are if I don't pay the fee, I'll be ticketed the $124 for not having it. It's far cheaper to pay the $30 for the year and not take the chance. Just because you haven't seen them patrol doesn't mean they don't. That's like saying trees don't make a sound when they fall cuz you weren't there to hear it.

I wasn't trying to be derisive in my description of those who pay. I pay. I always paid the prior state parks fee, and did indeed feel like a sucker when I was the only one in a crowded parking lot to do so. I know I'll be in a tiny fractional minority when I pay to park just out of a ditch in the Marckworth State Forest. When no one else pays, I'll again feel like a chump. And yeah, I think I can bank on no enforcement there. I'm not advocating violating the law; I can't. I do wish they had excluded lands that they have no intention of patrolling, instead of lumping everything together. (What the hell am I even buying for my permit fee out in the Marckworth? There literally is no maintenance or other benefit to pay for.)

Well I'd better not park there then. I'm almost guaranteed to have the albatross close behind.

[+klossner]

And really, most of the foregoing probably also applies to state parks.

Back when it cost $5/day, Beacon Rock State Park was all about collecting the fees. I once emerged from my car to be greeted by a park ranger proffering a permit form.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I'm going to run out of room on my windsheld for all these permits...

 

1. Washington Fish and Game Conservation License ($10)

2. Northwest Forest Pass ($30)

3. State Parks / DNR Permit ($30)

[+klossner]

I'm going to run out of room on my windsheld for all these permits...

4. Sno-Park permit ($40)

[+Ambrosia]

I'd be more willing to pay these fees if I thought they actually went to the parks that I visit. From what I've heard from rangers, they rarely if at all see the money come back to their parks. I've seen some bitter rangers who understand that it's all a bureaucracy that doesn't translate well to real state park help.

[+Fuzzywhip]

I'm really confused about the Discovery Pass.

 

As an out-of-state cacher, is there a good web page or map that shows all the places that this pass is required?

 

I cache in Washington State a number of times a year, and need to know to be able to plan my trip efficently.

 

Thanks

 

Fuzzywhip

[+GrievousAngel]

I'm going to run out of room on my windsheld for all these permits...

 

1. Washington Fish and Game Conservation License ($10)

2. Northwest Forest Pass ($30)

3. State Parks / DNR Permit ($30)

 

I'm going to run out of room on my windsheld for all these permits...

4. Sno-Park permit ($40)

 

So which areas will be covered by the Discovery Pass? The Fish and Game vehicle use permit areas, the Northwest Forest Pass areas, access to DNR and state land trust areas which currently do not require a permit, access to state parks--is that correct, and is anything else covered? If I have this and a national parks permit, is everything covered?

[+Kiersolvd]

So which areas will be covered by the Discovery Pass? The Fish and Game vehicle use permit areas, the Northwest Forest Pass areas, access to DNR and state land trust areas which currently do not require a permit, access to state parks--is that correct, and is anything else covered? If I have this and a national parks permit, is everything covered?

 

Northwest Forrest Pass covers certain trailheads in National Forrest areas. I don't think a State pass will cover these areas.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Kiersolvd

[+AndrewRJ]

I'm going to run out of room on my windsheld for all these permits...

 

1. Washington Fish and Game Conservation License ($10)

2. Northwest Forest Pass ($30)

3. State Parks / DNR Permit ($30)

 

I'm going to run out of room on my windsheld for all these permits...

4. Sno-Park permit ($40)

 

So which areas will be covered by the Discovery Pass? The Fish and Game vehicle use permit areas, the Northwest Forest Pass areas, access to DNR and state land trust areas which currently do not require a permit, access to state parks--is that correct, and is anything else covered? If I have this and a national parks permit, is everything covered?

My understanding, And I may be wrong, is that we will need three passes based on what you are describing GA. The National Pass would cover the the National parks, the Forest service pass will cover the same trail heads that they cover now, and the new Discovery Pass will cover DNR, WSFW, and other state forest lands.

[+TattorQuin]

I'm really confused about the Discovery Pass.

 

As an out-of-state cacher, is there a good web page or map that shows all the places that this pass is required?

 

I cache in Washington State a number of times a year, and need to know to be able to plan my trip efficently.

 

Thanks

 

Fuzzywhip

 

Fuzzywhip...

 

For the Discovery Pass (Washington State Land Management areas) click on the map.

 

and..

 

for the US Forest Service area (National parks and Forest land)

[+TattorQuin]

This is all very confusing.

 

I am assuming if I want to trail hike only (and cache) that I need a Discovery Pass and a National Forest Pass. I have been doing some research on the subject and this is what I have come up with (not that it answers a whole lot...perhaps makes things more confusing).

 

The Washington Trails Association talks about the Discovery pass but nothing about the National Forest pass. Plus I really had to do some digging to find any information about needing passes or permits to be on trails or park at trail heads. Really should be on the home page but that's a complaint for another time.

 

The USDA Forest Service website doesnt list the Discovery pass at all. It does mention that Washington Oregon State Parks pass. But that pass looks as if for us Washingtonians it is only good for dumping RV poo and watercraft launching (not useful for me AT ALL). This site DOES talk about the National Forest Pass and a Northwest Forest Pass (which is a National Forest annual pass good for only Washington and Oregon...NOT to be confused with the Washington and Oregon State parks pass that I mentioned before).

 

The Discover Your Northwest website also doesnt mention the Discovery Pass but does mention the national Forest pass.

 

The Washington state parks website mentions the Discovery Pass as well as some other passes (to confuse you further) but does not mention the National Forest Pass.

 

Perhaps I am confused but is there National Forest land that has a Washington State park in it or Washington State maintained land in it? And $30 for a Discovery Pass and $30 for a National Forest Pass...

 

No wonder so many people plop their butts in front of a TV and don't get out of the house more often. It's confusing to know what exactly you need to have and it's expensive. Like our fellow cacher above, you could end up buying a pass you dont even have a use for (ie: Washington Oregon State pass).

 

~TQ

 

Oh, on a side note I noticed that even places that don't have trails, like Chelan Butte (a place I often go because it is in my backyard) that I'd need a Discovery pass too. I know the pass said it was good for Washington maintained land too but it just goes to show that places you go to all the time may require a pass now. I hope that Washington State is advertising or posting signs at these places instead of just assuming people will know that they need this pass after not needing it for so long. But on the other hand, do I want the money that I pay in to go into advertising instead of the maintenance the money was originally intended for? No, not really. Catch 22 and still confusing.

 

Sorry for the length of this post

[+vds]

This is all very confusing.

 

Agree. I find it BEYOND confusing, as well as beyond annoying. It seems to be intentionally confusing.

 

What I'm looking for is 'one' pass that gets me into all state + national lands in the state of Washington (excluding the National Parks which I find somewhat self-evident). What's the price/day or week or year to do that?

 

Reading the non-authoritative web pages, I have zero clue what I need to go where. I don't KNOW (nor care) who manages which particular set of trails or parking areas or trailheads. That shouldn't be the users' problem.

 

Making you register for a non-transferable permit tied to one vehicle is simple greed. In most cases you take 'one' vehicle. You should get to pick whichever vehicle you want to use that day.

 

The whole thing is either simple greed, or pathetically lame, or both.

[+AndrewRJ]

You know I actually sat down and read the legislation. I am no lawyer but I noticed 2 things. It sets up the pass and says that it has to be in its carrier and it says that it has to be visible and that the pass will be needed per car.

 

But I have yet to see anywhere that says that you have to fill in the license plate line on the pass or that there is a penalty for not doing so.

[+klossner]

My understanding, And I may be wrong, is that we will need three passes ... the National Pass would cover the the National parks, the Forest service pass will cover the same trail heads that they cover now ...

If you buy the expensive national park pass (the "America the Beautiful: National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Annual Pass (Interagency Annual Pass)"), it works anywhere a Northwest Forest Pass is required. But neither is sufficient in winter if the trailhead is a snow-park location.

[+crouchcrew]

Since you will get a free pass for 25 hours of volunteer work maybe it will motivate cachers to host more CITO events for free passes?

[+klossner]

I have yet to see anywhere that says that you have to fill in the license plate line on the pass or that there is a penalty for not doing so.

For the old vehicle use permit, DFW regulations specified:

 

• Vehicle Use Permits may designate up to two vehicles for use.
  
• Permits must be placed in full view from outside the vehicle. Please have the license plate number(s) of the vehicle written in the space provided on the permit.
  

That web site has been taken down but, for the next few days, you can still see it in the Google cache.

 

We can hope that the new permit won't impose this same restriction, but it looks like we won't know until July 1.

[+TattorQuin]

Since you will get a free pass for 25 hours of volunteer work maybe it will motivate cachers to host more CITO events for free passes?

 

I like your thinking!!

[+ironman114]

I have yet to see anywhere that says that you have to fill in the license plate line on the pass or that there is a penalty for not doing so.

For the old vehicle use permit, DFW regulations specified:

 

• Vehicle Use Permits may designate up to two vehicles for use.
  
• Permits must be placed in full view from outside the vehicle. Please have the license plate number(s) of the vehicle written in the space provided on the permit.
  

That web site has been taken down but, for the next few days, you can still see it in the Google cache.

 

We can hope that the new permit won't impose this same restriction, but it looks like we won't know until July 1.

 

Per the Discoverpass.wa.gov site:

 

"Q. Why can’t I transfer one Discover Pass among my vehicles?

A. The Discover Pass legislation specifically states the pass applies to one vehicle. "

 

Discover Faq

[+uxorious]

"Q. Why can’t I transfer one Discover Pass among my vehicles?

A. The Discover Pass legislation specifically states the pass applies to one vehicle. "

 

What kind of answer is that? The state must think we are little kids, and the answer "because I told you so" should be good enough.

 

Why can't those idiots in control try to give a reason we won't be able to transfer one pass between all our own vehicles.

Edited June 7, 2011 by uxorious

[+AndrewRJ]

I have yet to see anywhere that says that you have to fill in the license plate line on the pass or that there is a penalty for not doing so.

For the old vehicle use permit, DFW regulations specified:

 

• Vehicle Use Permits may designate up to two vehicles for use.
  
• Permits must be placed in full view from outside the vehicle. Please have the license plate number(s) of the vehicle written in the space provided on the permit.
  

That web site has been taken down but, for the next few days, you can still see it in the Google cache.

 

We can hope that the new permit won't impose this same restriction, but it looks like we won't know until July 1.

 

Per the Discoverpass.wa.gov site:

 

"Q. Why can’t I transfer one Discover Pass among my vehicles?

A. The Discover Pass legislation specifically states the pass applies to one vehicle. "

 

Discover Faq

Like I said I never actually found that in the actuall document. I may have overlooked it, or not understood it.

[jholly]

"Q. Why can’t I transfer one Discover Pass among my vehicles?

A. The Discover Pass legislation specifically states the pass applies to one vehicle. "

 

What kind of answer is that? The state must think we are little kids, and the answer "because I told you so" should be good enough.

 

Why can't those idiots in control try to give a reason we won't be able to transfer one pass between all our own vehicles.

Because they can make more money by forcing you to buy a pass for each vehicle you own. We won't even go in to what happens if you sell that vehicle. It's all about the money.

[+B+L]

"Q. Why can't I transfer one Discover Pass among my vehicles?

A. The Discover Pass legislation specifically states the pass applies to one vehicle. "

 

What kind of answer is that? The state must think we are little kids, and the answer "because I told you so" should be good enough.

 

Why can't those idiots in control try to give a reason we won't be able to transfer one pass between all our own vehicles.

Because they can make more money by forcing you to buy a pass for each vehicle you own. We won't even go in to what happens if you sell that vehicle. It's all about the money.

More precisely, it's all about the lack of money.

 

It is a *vehicle* pass. As long as you are not using a registered motor vehicle as defined in RCW 27 46.04.320, you do not need a pass at all.