I've also been questioned by confused Lake City Fred Meyer staff
regarding Conservation Licenses, and I ended up not getting one at all.
Any tweeters ever been ticketed/towed or inconvenienced by enforcement
officials for not having such a license? It seemed kind of ludicrous
trying to argue with Fred Meyer staff to obtain a license!

Kevin Li
Seattle, WA

>----------
>From: Martha Jordan[SMTP:marthaj at premier1.net]
>Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 2:21 AM
>To: Tweeters
>Subject: Conservation License
>
>Hello,
> I have been working with the RCW intensly for the past few months.
>
>1. It currently is a personal license NOT a parking permit.
>2. It is to be carried on the person.
>3. You need only one type of license to use WDFW lands, although I know
>some people who have purchased both hunting & conservation just to add to
>the funding pot. They were purchased seperately on different days.
>4. The recent HB2819 seeks to gut the entire Con. Lic. program and make it
>a parking permit to fund ONLY improved access areas and even more
>specifically to fund boat access areas. I know this as I went to the
>public hearing at the House Natural Resources Committee. It appears that
>some top staff want to get more money for their program needs and do not
>care that another program may be gutted in the process.
>
>HB2819 is NOT supported by most WDFW employees including many in law
>enforcement and even more in the Lands Program.
>
>Martha Jordan
>marthaj at premier1.net
>
>My impression, from reading the various discussions about conservation
>licenses, was that they were for individuals, and that one could in
>theory be stopped out on foot somewhere and asked for it. However,
>when I went to buy a license from Fred Meyer in Lake City, I got into
>a dispute with them about it. I tried to buy a "John Doe" second license
>in case I went birding with a friend. They said no. So I tried to
>buy two in my name. They said they weren't allowed to do that. So
>a manager was called over. We went back and forth and she finally said
>that the licenses were for *cars*, not individuals. She was quite
>adament that it was more akin to a parking permit. Her example was
>water skiers using state property to park on without paying. I tried
>to explain that my impression was that these were for individuals, to
>no avail.
>
>So who's right? You guys, or them?
>
>Bob Mauritsen
>rhm at ms.washington.edu
>