Doug...

Agree with you completely... We should contribute to the welfare and
benefit of the area's we use... The lands are already set aside by the
state, if we're going to drive our SUV's, Vans, etc into the parking areas,
walk across the areas, we should help with the overall maintenance and
preservation of the area.

We don't want the parking area's paved over, speed bumps, berms,
etc. Let's contribute our little fees and be thankful we've the opportunity
to do so... I would imagine, otherwise a lot of these areas will pass into
private ownership... West90 comes to mind.

There's no such thing as a free lunch... We all pay at some point.
Use Fees is the fairest way to handle this... You want to use the area, you
should pay to maintain it...


Peter Sullins
The Sullins Family
In The Village of Silver Firs
Everett, WA
TheSullinsFamily at earthlink.net


-----Original Message-----
From: TWEETERS-owner at u.washington.edu
[mailto:TWEETERS-owner at u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Schonewald
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:39 AM
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Santa Claus out the window

Hi tweets,

An interesting development and thread, and one that could create some
strong emotions.
Personally I find the parking and use permit long overdue. Most of the
sites that birders use that are administered by the WDFW involve some
development. This is not done for free. I think that use fees are much more
in line than increased taxes over the entire population to support the cost
of developments. Someone must pay for them, and if we, as users, are
utilizing these areas then we should pay for them.
Remember that this only applies to WDFW owned and managed sites. It does
not apply to 'all' public lands. It is also a very small fee when you
extrapolate it out over a years time.
The overall concept here is that if you use it you pay to do so. If you
choose not to use it then you don't pay. That seems fair.
User fees are not a new thing. National Parks, State Parks, and the US
Forest Service have had use fees for some time. The WDFW has had use fees
for their areas for years. They are simply raising the fee commensurate with
the cost of maintaining and enhancing the areas covered under the use fee.
As far as taxing harmful products and developments that is not a bad idea.
However history has shown us that legislatures are not very good at
diverting these taxes and fees to the places that they were intended to go.
A perfect example it the Pittman-Roberts tax on outdoor goods. This tax is
assessed on all outdoor equipment that is sold nationwide. The intent was
that this money would go toward habitat and wildlife ventures. The truth is
the lions share goes back into the general fund and never gets to the
wildlife and habitat that so desperately need it.
Perhaps a better crusade might be to demand of our public officials that
ALL of the monies generated and intended for wildlife and/or habitat be used
for such. Then perhaps these additional use fees would be unnecessary.
Just my opinion.

Doug Schonewald
Moses Lake