Spey Pages banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Thanks for the heads up there!
This is very disturbing news. I do think that there probably is some justification for this in a very few select locations, at certain times of the year perhaps. Still, this seems to be over reacting to an almost comical level ... except that no one's laughing.

I can't help but find this ironic; that this bill comes from a politician who, by party affiliation, I would assume to be most supportive to the concept "less government"? Seems to me that this is precisely the sort of thing that we don't need a bunch of knee jerk, one size fits all, wide sweeping legislation, just to address a few small issues.

JB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
The handwriting on the wall indicates the landowner who prompted this legislation has big pockets, and shares them amply with the sponsoring legislator.
Partisanship aside, politicians in general have to rate lower than used car salesmen these days. Oh for the good ol' days of respected politicians!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
The handwriting on the wall indicates the landowner who prompted this legislation has big pockets, and shares them amply with the sponsoring legislator.
Partisanship aside, politicians in general have to rate lower than used car salesmen these days. Oh for the good ol' days of respected politicians!
I would suspect you're likely correct there. To be sure, my comments weren't intended in any way to spark partisan (and likely pointless) debates. Rather, that I find this particular legislation ironic and incongruent with said ideology.
JB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Here's the next bill that will be passed after this one gets through:

"Any and all current public access points, roads, trails, streams, etc. falling inside of a 5 mile radius of property owned or controlled by individuals participating in politics, friends or family of said politician, or donors to said politician shall now be controlled by the adjacent private landowner or private entity. This private entity shall have the capacity to dictate any and all access and legal use of the public property that falls within the previously defined radius for reasons of security, financial benefit, and convenience."

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't be giving these guys any ideas...this seems ludicrous to most people but probably makes the political class salivate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
I wonder if the guy cited by Rep. Haler is the owner of the property next to the Umtanum campground and launch. That property is used by the public as a campground even though it's posted private property, albeit with no structures or other indication that anybody uses the land, at least not as of my last trip on the Yak. The owner of that property has a legitimate gripe by most people's standards, though it hardly justifies a law to restrict river access across the state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
Thanks Phil. Larry Haler is my state representative and both he and my other representative are hearing from me. This is an issue in a small town of West Richland resulting from a landowner bothered by the summer splash and giggle crowd. It is indeed overkill and could impact river access across Washington State. I also recommend that others in Washington State respond to their legislators. I heard that the bill was decimated in committee, but continued vigilance won't hurt.

Mark
 

·
Scandit sublima virtus
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Kudos Phil,
Good job on getting the word out about this.

regards,
Bob
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top