+menu-


  • Category Archives Public Meetings
  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #92 Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can’t legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS Statistics taken from Clallam County future land use map 79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND 17.1% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 We, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011. There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Update.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • To Rep. Kilmer Electronic Warfare

    To Rep. Kilmer Electronic Warfare

    The following information has been submitted:

    Name: ms Pearl Rains Hewett

    Address: 235 W. 5th St.,
    City/State/Zip: Port Angeles, WA 98362 2811

    E-mail: phew@wavecable.com
    Telephone: (360) 417-9452

    Issue: ENV

    Message Subject:

    Protesting the Navy’s plans for electromagnetic warfare

    ——————————————————————–
    Message Text:

    Derek,

    These are your people in your home town.

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned the forum was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process.

    Are the Feds just allowing them to blow off steam?

    Last night in Port Angeles, WA. KOMO news was there…

    http://vimeo.com/111189009

    ———————————————————–

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    —————————————————-

    I sent this comment to friends…

    Good job FOR A LOCAL PROTEST.

    HOWEVER….This is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.

    CITIZENS MUST GO TO THEIR FEDERALLY ELECTED TO BE EFFECTIVE.

    I did not attend….

    I am Pearl Revere… NOT JOAN OF ARC.

    Thanks for the update.

    Pearl

    —————————————————————–

    November 7th, 2014 – 6:15am

    (Port Angeles) – More than a hundred people crammed the Port Angeles city council chambers last night, most protesting the Navy’s plans for electromagnetic warfare training over the west end of the Olympic Peninsula.

    The US Forest Service is considering a permit that would allow the Navy to place radio frequency emitters on mobile trucks in the Olympic National Forest. Forest Service and Navy officials held a public forum on the plan last night. But most of the those attending were strongly opposed, often interrupting the presenters. Every person asking questions was against the idea, echoing previous concerns about the effect of RF in the forest areas.

    The U.S. Pacific Fleet’s Northwest environmental program manager John Mosher says his agency’s environmental assessment for the permit shows it’s safe.

    But many of those asking questions disagreed and asked if current data was used in the study. Questions also covered the amount of noise expected by the increased training. Navy officials say the planes will fly at altitudes higher than 10-thousand feet and there will be no more than a 10 percent increase in activity. Some asked why the Navy doesn’t use an established training area. Navy officials say that would be costly and they area already doing training in this area.

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned the forum was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process. The Forest Service is keeping that comment period open until November 28th.

    ————————————————————————

    Please don’t allow your people to protest in vein…

    Protest definition, an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid:

    Still just, a Concerned American Grandmother

    Would you like a response? Y

     


  • Now, Who’s Winning the Pot War?

    Now, Who’s Winning the Pot War?

    PDN front page Commissioners tough new POT ordinance.

    October 8th, 2014 And the good news is….

    With Clallam County’s  tougher marijuana land laws

    OUT OF TOWN OPPORTUNISTS ..need not apply

    OPPORTUNIST by definition.. a person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by consistent principles or plans.

    Now, in Clallam County RECREATIONAL Pot Growers and Processors will have to have “SOME OF THEIR OWN SKIN IN THE GAME” by having at least  Fifteen acres of land and reside on the residential property. And, Put their POT PLANT  in THEIR OWN BACK YARD.

    ———————————————————————————-

    On Sept 20, 2014

    THE LOCAL ISSUE WAS,  “YES BUT,  NOT IN MY BACK YARD”

    This is an update from

    Who’s Winning the “POT” War? posted on Sept 20, 2014

    What WAR?

    We won, “RECREATIONAL POT IS LEGAL”

    OK, so Let’s reword it, Who’s Winning the War on “POT” Issues?

    THE LOCAL Issues? on the “POT”  War? (as an example)

    Let’s say, I  voted for initiative 502, I voted and approved WA State recreational pot businesses.

    THE LOCAL ISSUE IS,  “YES BUT,  NOT IN MY BACK YARD”

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Sept. 9, 2014 The local issues now? With the Commissioners tough new POT ordinance

    It’s only good for 6 months

    There are eight prospective Pot business owners who have already applied for a conditional use permit that are vested under existing policy’s.

    I spent four and a half hours at the Hearing Examiners, Hooker Road POT hearing yesterday, for just (1) CUP vested “POT” holder.(standing room only)

    The meeting was briefly interrupted by the 1:00pm Hearing Examiners ruling on the Fairview School POT hearing. The fatal error process of the DCD on notification to the public.

    (47) items placed in evidence.

    The last thing on the Hearing Examiners  agenda   on  Hooker Road hearing on POT, was a discussion on the appeals process.

    The ruling by the hearing examiner will be issued  in 10 working days.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Is six months going to be long enough to sort out these local “legal” POT issue?

    ————————————————————————————————————

    KONP October 8th, 2014 – 5:23am

    (Port Angeles) – Clallam County commissioners have adopted interim rules that will make it harder to locate marijuana businesses in rural neighborhoods of the county.

    Commissioners unanimously approved the interim zoning ordinance yesterday.

    Legal pot growing, processing and selling operations will not be allowed in medium and high-density neighborhoods.

    The interim ordinance also requires the business owner live on the property and creates deeper setbacks of 200 feet. There will also have to be at least 15 acres of contiguous ownership at he parcel.

    The ordinance goes into effect October 17th and will last six months.

    County officials say it will provide better certainty for those wishing to enter the marijuana industry that has been legalized under the state of Washington.

    Until now, the county has relied on a conditional use permit process to determine locations. Many of the applications have met with strong opposition to neighbors in the proposed areas.

    ————————————————————————————-

    read more at, Clallam adopts tougher marijuana ordinance for rural areas …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/clallam-adoptsto

    Peninsula Daily News

    1 day ago – Since recreational marijuana became legal in Washington, Clallam County has applied its current code for pot, allowing entrepreneurs to grow …

    ——————————————————————————————-


  • Navy to Face Public on Warfare

    Navy  to Face Public  on Electronic Warfare

    Update Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula

    Oct.8, 2014  Kilmer responds (full text below)

    Oct 8, 2014 PDN Navy to Face Forks Public

    Oct, 9, 2014 PDN  We are going to extend comment through the end of October

    I did demand answers on Sept 3, 2014 and make Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his  personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Rep. Kilmer’s Response Oct. 8, 2014 (snippet, full text below)

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible FOR THE NAVY TO RE-OPEN THE COMMENT PERIOD and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    ——————————————————————————————

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    NAVY TO FACE PUBLIC NEXT WEEK ON PROPOSED WEST END …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/20141008/…/nav

    20 hours ago – FORKS — Community concerns over the Navy’s electronic warfare training proposal have prompted a meeting next week to … “We asked that the comment period be extended to [Oct. 31]

    ————————————————————————-

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    Thursday 9th October, 2014

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare Peninsula Daily News DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

     WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday.

    —————————————————————————————

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare program; DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

    Peninsula Daily News Thursday 9th October, 2014

    FORKS — The deadline has been EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT on the U.S. Navy’s environmental assessment for an electronic warfare training proposal. The development comes as the U.S. Forest Service considers issuing a special-use permit for the Navy to use its roads during the exercises.’; WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday. Comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range project’s environmental assessment was set to end Friday, but with a community meeting on the topic coming next week, …

    ——————————————————————————————

    FULL TEXT  of Derek Kilmer’s response

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Representative Derek Kilmer

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 12:37 PM

    Subject: Responding to Your Message

    Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    As you know, the Navy is interested in developing an electronic warfare range to assist Navy pilots practice their skills. The range would consist of one permanent structure, located near Whidbey Island, and three mobile vehicles outfitted with electronics. All four components would be capable of emitting signals that would be observed by the pilots while conducting training missions.

    In accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was conducted to determine the effects the range would have on the local environment. The draft study was made available to the public for comment between August 1 and August 15th. The comment period is now closed.

    I heard a few concerns from constituents about the EIS and reached out to the Navy to understand what kind of outreach had been conducted prior to alert individuals of the comment period and the proposed project.

    Based on information I have received thus far, I am concerned that the steps the Navy took did not adequately inform the community of the public comment period. Folks should have an opportunity to be briefed on activities that may affect their community and should also have the chance to weigh in with questions and concerns.

    I am working with the Navy to expand their outreach to the Olympic Peninsula and the West End to communicate planned infrastructure and capability investments that may affect our community. To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible for the Navy to re-open the comment period and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    Please know, that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind, as I work with the Navy to further understand this project and ensure that they improve their communications throughout our region.

    Sincerely,

    Derek Kilmer
    Member of Congress

     

    —————————————————————————————————–

    How could Representative Derek Kilmer  ignore and fail to respond on TO MY SEPT. 3, 2014 EMAIL, questions and concerns on Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP

    ATTITUDE IS A SMALL THING, BUT IT IS EVERYTHING WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT

    No matter what kind of shape OUR COUNTRY  is in, if  OUR ATTITUDE is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP, WE will stand a much better chance of succeeding. The folks in cyberspace  with will pick up on OUR  investigations, facts, documentation,,  credibility, sincerity and conviction, and they’ll begin to operate the same way. AND IT WILL ENABLE ALL OF US to take the difficult steps necessary.

    I did continue to post comments on my website, demanding answers and making Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula?

    Posted on September 29, 2014 6:54 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    To Comment on Environmental Warfare?

    Posted on October 1, 2014 1:49 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————-

    Update on EW Public Comment

    Posted on October 1, 2014 2:40 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ——————————————————————————–

    More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    Posted on October 4, 2014 5:16 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

    We have exposed the fatal error in the Due Process Law

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    The Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula,is no longer JUST a Local Issue.  The power of cyberspace has made it an AMERICA ISSUE.

     

     


  • (7) WA Parks New Deal and Raw Deals

    (7) WA Parks -New Deal and  Raw Deals

    First Posted  – In Part, as (9) WOW New Deal –  Feb. 21, 2014

    snippet,

    Implicitly, the CCC also led to a greater public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors

    CCC included improved physical condition, heightened morale, and increased employability

    This should be required reading to enlighten

    The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on WA Parks -Recreation and Tourism

    ——————————————————————————

    The Second New Deal “(1935-1938)

    THE CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS (CCC)

    THE UNEMPLOYED AND POOR UPGRADED MOST STATE PARKS

    CONSTRUCTED MORE THAN 800 PARKS NATIONWIDE

    At its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men and women, as well as youth

    ——————————————————————————————————

    Aug. 19, 2014 The WA Parks Raw Deal? Recreation? and Tourism?

    The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force?

    What was it that they were all constantly babbling about?

    Public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors and improved physical condition?

    Well, except for the lower element? Those families of the working poor and unemployed?

    ——————————————————————————————

    In addition, THE CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS (CCC) those poor and unemployed

    Updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings, public roadways in remote areas, and planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America

    I repeat, IMPLICITLY, THE CCC ALSO LED TO A GREATER PUBLIC AWARENESS AND APPRECIATION OF THE OUTDOORS AND THE NATION’S NATURAL RESOURCES; and the continued need for a carefully planned, comprehensive national program for the protection and development of natural resources.

    ——————————————————————————-

    The first New Deal (1933–34)

    What historians call the 3 R’S: RELIEF, RECOVERY, AND REFORM. that is relief for the UNEMPLOYED AND POOR; RECOVERY OF THE ECONOMY to normal levels; and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

    ——————————————————————————

    The Raw Deal Aug. 19, 2014

    The WA Parks Raw Deal? Recreation? and Tourism?

    The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force?

    FOR THE UNEMPLOYED AND POOR The cost of the Discovery Pass discourages the lower element?

    SELECTIVELY prohibits use of WA State Parks by financial affordability to a specific social economic financial class?

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program

    That operated from 1933 TO 1942 in the United states for Unemployed, Unmarried men from relief families, ages 18–25 as part the new deal.  and provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments.

    The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States   while at the same time implementing a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory.

    In nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC  (my dad was one of them) which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 a month ($25 of which had to be sent home to their families).

    Check with your family, a member of YOUR FAMILY was very likely one of the POOR, UNEMPLOYED, MOSTLY UNSKILLED PEOPLE that participated in the rebuilding of America during the depression.

    ———————————————————————

    Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs. it tried to provide one paid job for all families in which the breadwinner suffered long-term unemployment.

    (I am NOT endorsing unions)

    ALMOST EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES HAD A NEW PARK, bridge or school constructed by  those poor and previously unemployed people.

    New Deal agency  employing millions of unemployed people (mostly unskilled men) to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    THE IRONY OF THESE DEALS, THE 1933-1943 DEPRESSION NEW AND THE 2014 RAW, is the incongruity between what actually happened and what might be expected to happen, especially when this disparity seems ABSURD or laughable.

    That the very same type, social economic class of people, THE POOR, UNEMPLOYED AND UNSKILLED,  between 1933-1943

    Physically  BUILT UP THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL  PARKS, THE ROADS, SHELTERS, TRAILS AND  PLANTED OVER 300 MILLION TREES TO REFOREST AMERICA, when, ALMOST EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES HAD A NEW PARK, bridge or school that was constructed by poor and previously unemployed people.

    IRONICALLY THOSE POOR AND UNEMPLOYED, UNSKILLED PEOPLE, OUR FOREFATHERS, WERE INVITED TO COME ON PUBLIC LAND, 

    THEY WERE HIRED TO, PAID TO, AND  DID DO, THE WORK TO BUILD AND IMPROVE OUR PUBLIC ACCESS AND USE OF OUR FEDERAL AND STATE PARKS PUBLIC LAND IN AMERICA.

    NOW?  In 2014 shall “We The People”  examine the WA Parks and ONP RAW DEALS?

    OUR FOREFATHERS BUILT THE PARKS.

     NOW? their descendents, AKA the lower element, the FAMILIES OF working poor and/or unemployed people, HAVE BEEN DENIED  affordable PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND,  BECAUSE OF their low income and social status?

    ACCESS Denied? BECAUSE OF  THE PROHIBITIVE  COST, arbitrarily? authoritarians?  using their unlimited power to IMPOSE FEDERAL, ONP AND WA STATE PARKS  fees and passes?

    Is this Really America?

    DISCRIMINATION by exclusion of the lower element?

    ——————————————————————–

     WOW, THE Olympic National Park RAW DEAL  2014

    Senator Murray and Rep.  Kilmer keep proposing and pushing  THE RAW DEALS.

    WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS & WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT of 2014 ) an additional 126,000 more acres of National Forest land would be taken out of planned harvestable Natural Resource  timber production.

    IT WOULD  LIMIT AND RESTRICT PUBLIC USE AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND, CLOSE ROADS AND BAR ENTRY WITH LOCKED GATES, CREATING 126,000 WILD ACRES OF NO MAN’S REASONABLE ECONOMIC RESOURCE OR USE OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAND.

    LIBERALS ARE TOO DAMNED WILD FOR ME!

    First Posted  – In Part as (9) WOW New Deal –  Feb. 21, 2014

    read  MORE – WOW WAR ON WILD-  PARTS (1) THROUGH (11)

     


  • (6) WA Parks Public Access to Public Land

    (6) WA Parks  Public Access to Public Land

    Comments from the Blue Ribbon Task force on WA State Parks  Recreation and Tourism

    Aug,19, 2014.

    Comment, THE COST (OF THE DISCOVER PASS) DISCOURAGES THE LOWER ELEMENT?

    (like this is a GOOD THING?)

    From the LOCAL PEOPLE’S USE  And Access to WA State Parks?

    REALLY? That is AN unconscionable REMARK?

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    THE COST (OF THE DISCOVER PASS) DISCOURAGES THE LOWER ELEMENT?

    The cost of the Discovery Pass SELECTIVELY prohibits use of WA State Parks by financial affordability and financial class?

    Financial PROFILING? BY USING $$$, Class distinction TO ALLOW, PROHIBIT OR CONTROL THE USE OF PUBLIC LAND BY AMERICAN CITIZENS?

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    CONFIRMING THE OBSTRUCTION OF  AFFORDABILITY.

    Comment,  In a depressed economy LOCAL people in my area can’t afford the $30.00 cost of the Discovery Pass

    The well heeled?  Professional’s? OUT OF TOWNER’S, TOURISTS, RUNNER’S AND FISHERMEN   are WELCOMED AND INVITED to come?   TO  FISH  AND RUN (on the Discovery Trail) PLAY, STAY AND SPEND THEIR MONEY?

    WHILE, THE COST (OF THE DISCOVER PASS) DISCOURAGES THE LOWER ELEMENT?

    —————————————————————————————————–

    Consider this? Less than half of the governor’s  appointed task force sat through the ENTIRE seven hour discussions on the meeting.

    But? (the table was full)  everybody? showed up to create the final draft?

    ————————————————————————————————————

    I sat SILENTLY through the entire seven hour WA Park Recreation and Tourism meeting.

    A question was asked “IS ONP A PROBLEM?

    Is the OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK A PROBLEM? With regard to WA Park Recreation and Tourism?

    (not one person on the committee responded?) Including REP. STEVE THARINGER?

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    “IS ONP A PROBLEM?”

    If?  I had been allowed to make more than a strictly enforced, clock timed,  two minute LOCAL public comment?

    Below is my comment Feb. 14, 2013,  POSTED OVER ONE AND A HALF YEARS AGO,

    ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND

    THE WILD OLYMPICS – WILDERNESS SCOPING PLAN and to all Federal, STATE Agencies, elected officials, and APPOINTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES including the ONP and the US fish and wildlife service.

    PAY PER VIEW
    A non-public service provided by the appointed, including, BUT NOT LIMITED to, the National Park Service, ONP and WA STATE PARKS in which every vested American citizen can purchase the right to view public land.

    Continue reading for the full text

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    Pay Per View Or Free On Demand

    Posted Feb. 14, 2013 by Pearl Rains Hewett

    PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND? PAY PER VIEW? OR FREE ON DEMAND?

    This is my comment on public access to public land, the WILD Olympics – Wilderness Scoping Plan and to all Federal State Agencies, elected officials, and appointed government agencies including the ONP and the US fish and wildlife service.

    Expand your entertainment options exponentially with direct FREE use and access to public land ON DEMAND.

    PAY PER VIEW
    A non-public service provided by the appointed, including, but not limited to, the National Park Service, ONP and WA STATE PARKS in which every vested American citizen can purchase the right to view public land. The government requires the exorbitant payment at the same or new government road blocks, time after time, to every Vested American ordering it (as opposed to the right to view public land “FREE ON DEMAND systems, which would allow vested American viewers to see and have reasonable use to public land free at any time).

    PAY PER VIEW
    Paid parks entry can be purchased using an on-line guide, an automated telephone system, or through an automated non-customer service representative.

    PAY PER VIEW
    Government park PAY PER VIEW events often include, restricted use, excessive other restrictions, QUOTAS, conservation, no jogging, no horses, road blocks, reservations, limited campsites, closed trails, permits, more permits, closed roads, denied access, no off road vehicles, no campfires, no fishing, no hunting, no shooting, no pets, no bicycles, and adding additional new enhanced features like surveillance, law enforcement,
    ticketing, court appearance events and exorbitant payment of non-negotiable fines on you, for your entertainment.

    FREE ON DEMAND
    Expand your entertainment options exponentially with direct free use and access to public lands on demand.

    FREE ON DEMAND
    Vested American citizens have instant free access to millions and millions of acre in the hottest NATIONAL PARKS AND STATE PARKS, whenever you want, where ever you want. Enjoy the Olympic National Park, catch up on missed camping episodes of your favorite campsites or rediscover old favorites, like the 7 Lake Basin.

    SUBSCRIBE NOW
    For your free direct public access on demand? To start enjoying free direct on demand access and reasonable use to public land?

    GETTING STARTED
    Sacramento, CA; July 17, 2012: On behalf of off-road motorized recreational users of the Tahoe National Forest, attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation today sued the federal government for illegally closing off more than 800 miles of roads and trails that have been used for decades by the public for environmentally responsible off-road motorized recreation, access to camping and fishing, and to assist in the prevention of forest fires.

    Support Pacific Legal Foundation “We are filing this lawsuit to stop the U.S. Forest Service from illegally padlocking vast areas of the Tahoe national forest and blocking the public from enjoying responsible recreational use of public lands,” said PLF attorney Brandon M. Middleton.

    The Federal Courts will decide.

    PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND?

    FREE ON DEMAND? OR PAY PER VIEW?

    You decide.

     


  • (5) WA Parks – The Unintended Consequences

    (5) WA Parks – The Unintended Consequences of the power of Cyberspace

    I did attend the Sequim Public meeting of the blue ribbon task force, by invitation, promised an opportunity to make public comment  and I did give public testimony on Aug. 19, 2014.

    I did NOT have a good time.

    It was one of the most insulting and dismissive Public Meetings I have ever attended.

    INSULTING by definition, hurtful and offensive, causing offense by being rude or insensitive or by suggesting a low opinion of somebody or something

    DISMISSIVE by definition, contemptuous or indifferent indicating rejection, especially in a contemptuous or indifferent way.

    After I waited for nearly seven hours. I was permitted to give, a clocked and timed, exactly two minute public comment.

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    The  seven hours that I spent on Aug. 19, 2014 listening to the appointed blue ribbon panel?

    When a member of the panel was opposed to putting public comment after the committees conclusions had been completed?

    Adding insult to injury…

    District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word.

    Why bother to solicit OUR input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    ————————————————————————————–

    Things happen for a reason.

    THAT MEETING was why I  posted my comment on  behindmyback.org

    WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    It was not intended to promote WA Parks.

    It was in fact an Unintended Consequence of the power of Cyberspace

    The Comment reached #5 on the Google search engine web of over 5.5 MILLION displayed results. (intended to promote WA Parks)

    Does anyone know how posted comments go to? get to? arrive at? and

    show up on the Google information web? I certainly don’t.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    The comment that I posted on my website, was also, in part, a sarcastic response to the cumulative years of exclusion and omission of “We the People” on the Olympic Peninsula, and the comment was directed to those elected government representative, that  have ignored  our public comments, refused to allow us to ask questions, refused to answer our questions and denied us the due process of law.

    ——————————————————————————————————

    When the blue ribbon panel convened on Feb. 19, 2014

    And, when the task force was instructed  under EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01

    and encouraged to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    Feb. 19, 2014 District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word to the people he represents

    —————————————————————————

    WHERE WAS REP. THARINGER WHEN WE NEEDED HIM?

    And in the following six months Rep. Steve Tharinger did not bother to notify or set up anything in district 24, to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word or lift a hand to the people he represents

    Why bother to solicit OUR input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    ———————————————————————————–

    When the media finally got around to informing “We the People” in  District 24, on Aug. 18, 2014 of the blue ribbon task force Public meeting and comment with one day notice? on Aug. 19, 2014?

    District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger knew the Sequim meeting was eleven days before

    The Task Force shall complete its draft plan and recommendation by September 1, 2014.

    And, Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word, when he knew our public comments after the fact, would be a mote point.

    —————————————————————————-

    IF  REP. THARINGER DOES NOT RESPOND TO, OR NEED OUR INPUT?

    The needs and concerns of  taxpaying, private property owning citizens and families on  the Olympic Peninsula have been ignored by for years, by both our Federal and WA State elected Government representatives.

    Appointed Federal and State Agencies have been allowed to “RULE” us with no intervention on our behalf by our elected.

    ————————————————————————————

    WHERE WAS REP. THARINGER WHEN WE NEEDED HIM?

    Jan. 27, 2011″When American Citizens are afraid of what their Government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me.”

    ————————————————————————-

    I have six ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

    Federal, Senators Marie Cantwell and Patty Murray, Rep. Derek Kilmer

    State, Rep. Tharinger and, VanDeWege, and Senator Hargrove.

    THEY HAVE ALL FORGOTTEN WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

    And they have voted, and promoted the taking of our public and private land in our surrounding area and have allowed the Federal and WA State Government  to take our land, water, property and our Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    They DO NOT act in the best interest of the economy or of our communities and they DO NOT protect the Constitutional Rights of the American citizens that they have been elected to represent.

    —————————————————————————————–

    Does anyone know why Google removes things from their Google information web?

    I do now!

    keep reading…

    ————————————————————————————-

    We all live and learn about the power of cyberspace, my understanding?

    Round and round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows?

    Google’s search engine,  put my WA Parks comment  in #5 place.

    My comment (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    was removed from Google search two days after I posted it.

    ———————————————————–

    Google  Removal Policies

    read more at: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324

    We want to organize the world’s information, but some content on the web is sensitive or not appropriate for everyone to see. This page explains our policies for different types of content that Google will remove from web, image or video results.

    ———————————————————————–

    I will probably never find out WHO  had it removed?

    But, I completely understand the WHY it was removed.

    It is still on my website.


  • (4) WA Parks Executive Order 14-01

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01

    What happens in Olympia,  on Feb. 19, 2014?

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01, Signed and sealed with the official seal of the state of Washington on this 19th day of February, 2014, at Olympia, Washington.

    Should not stay in Olympia until Aug. 18, 2014

    The Task Force is encouraged to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    Many business’s, people and families, on the Olympic Peninsula, would have been interested and sent or attended the Aug. 19, 2014 meeting to make PUBLIC COMMENT, but WHO KNEW?

    The Task Force shall complete its draft plan and recommendation by September 1, 2014.

     

    —————————————————————–

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01

    ESTABLISHING A BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY FOR

    OUTDOOR RECREATION IN WASHINGTON STATE

    WHEREAS,

    we want our children to experience, enjoy, learn about, and become lifetime

    stewards of Washington’s magnificent natural resources; and

     

    WHEREAS,

    maintaining access to, and facilities in, our state parks and state recreation lands managed by the departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources, as well as the entire network of local, state, federal, and private lands that make Washington an outdoor recreation Mecca important to the state’s citizens and the tourism industry; and

    WHEREAS,

    Washington’s stunning parks, outdoor recreation opportunities, and quality of life are an important incentive for attracting new businesses and retaining all types of employers to the state; and

    WHEREAS,

    outdoor recreation activities in Washington directly support 227,000 jobs and consumers spend $22.5 billion on outdoor recreation equipment, apparel, lodging, and other services, generating $1.6 billion in state and local tax revenue; and

    WHEREAS,

    outdoor recreation such as camping, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, boating, hiking, off-roading, cross-country and downhill skiing, mountain and road biking, scuba diving, surfing, horseback riding, and more strengthen the social and cultural fabric of communities and provide important and valuable contributions to urban and especially rural economies across the state; and

    WHEREAS,

    Washington State Parks, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Natural Resources have seen significant reductions in funding to operate, maintain, and make capital investments in campgrounds, boat

    launches, and trails, resulting in a continuing maintenance backlog; and public lands managed by federal and local agencies, including the

    United State Forest Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Parks Service face similar operating, maintenance, and capital investment backlogs;

    WHEREAS,

    the state lacks strategies for transforming its approach to outdoor recreation to ensure that this sector is properly recognized as contributing to the economy, creating and sustaining jobs, improving public health, and immeasurably improving the quality of life that Washingtonians cherish;

    NOW THEREFORE, I, Jay Inslee, Governor of the state of Washington, do hereby create the Washington Blue Ribbon Task Force on Parks and Outdoor Recreation.

    The Task Force shall use a holistic strategy to develop an action plan and issue recommendations to manage, transform, better leverage, or develop Washington’s outdoor recreation assets and state programs to increase outdoor recreation activities as well as promote the jobs and businesses associated with outdoor recreation. The strategy, action plan, and recommendations shall:

    1. Support and expand outdoor recreation jobs, businesses, and tourism across the state;

    2. Promote and expand recreational fishing and hunting opportunities as a way of advancing local economies;

    3. Promote outdoor recreation experiences and increase environmental awareness for youth, families, and adults;

    4. Support Washington-based businesses’ use of Washington’s quality of life and outdoor recreation experiences in recruiting and retaining talented employees as well as in attracting new businesses to the state;

    5. Develop long-term sustainable funding sources for Washington State Parks and other outdoor recreation lands and infrastructure managed by the Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources.This action plan shall also include recommendations for establishing an organizational mechanism to oversee implementation of the action plan and for promoting long-term outdoor recreation.

    The Governor shall appoint fifteen (15) voting members to the Task Force, representing a diverse and statewide profile of both the public and private sectors from the following stakeholder groups:

    1. Outdoor Recreation Business

    2. Tourism

    3. Environmental Organizations/Environmental Education

    4. Sportsmen/Sportswomen

    5. Environmental Education

    6. General Business

    7. Local and Federal Recreation Agencies

    8. Outdoor Recreation Participants

     

    The following state agencies shall designate representatives to participate as nonvoting members:

    1. Department of Fish and Wildlife

    2. Department of Natural Resources

    3.State Parks and Recreation Commission

    4. Recreation and Conservation Office

    5. Department of Commerce

    6. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

    7. Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation

    8. Office of Financial Management

     

    The Governor shall also invite one member from each of the two largest caucuses of the Senate and one member from each of the two largest caucuses of the House of Representatives to participate as nonvoting member

    The Governor shall designate one of the voting members as the chair of the Task Force. Non-governmental members of the Task Force may be reimbursed for travel and meeting expenses at the discretion of the Task Force.

    The Recreation and Conservation Office shall provide staff support and administer all contracts and expenses for the Task Force.

    The Task Force is encouraged to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    The Task Force shall complete its draft plan and recommendation by September 1, 2014.

    The Task Force shall complete its final plan and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature by September 19, 2014.

    The Task Force shall expire on December 31, 2014.

    This executive order shall take effect immediately.

    Signed and sealed with the official seal of the state of Washington on this

    19th day of February, 2014, at Olympia, Washington.

    By:/s/Jay Inslee Governor

    BY THE GOVERNOR:/s/Secretary of State

     

    http://www.governor.wa.gov/office/execorders/documents/14-01.pdf


  • (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    Governor Inslee WANTS the blue ribbon task force on parks and outdoor recreation,

    that he appointed, to  FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM.

    I did attend the Aug. 19, 2014  committee meeting in Sequim, and I sat SILENTLY through the meeting from 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    I was allowed, EXACTLY TWO MINUTES, to make my public comment at 7:50 P.M.

    I listened to what your 28 Appointed Committee member’s “WANT” for about seven hours.

    Rep. Tharinger  mentioned, that what you “WANT” to provide funding for recreation/tourism, and what you may actually get, could be significantly different.

    I do investigative, documented reporting on my website behindmyback.org.

    —————————————————————————–

    Below you will find  an exchange of emails

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    —————————————————————————

    Continue reading, for the full text of my questions, comments and the exchanged emails

    ——————————————————–

    Posted April 21, 2013 Pearl Rains Hewett

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    PUBLIC ACCESS AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR WA STATE PARKS

    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.

    ———————————————————————————-

    To: Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks

    Daniel,

    I am a WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders
    This my comment on YOUR Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs Washington State Parks and YOUR requested $$$$ legislation.
    ——————————————————————
    Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP)
    The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including park acquisition and development, habitat conservation, farmland preservation, and construction of outdoor recreation facilities.
    —————————————————————-

    MY COMMENT
    I find the title and description of the , WWRP program DISTURBING? It this WA park broad range of land protection, acquisition, development habitat, conservation program designed to provide outdoor recreation facilities for WILDLIFE?
    ————————————————————–

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)

    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)
    ——————————————————————
    Per Rep. VanDeWege, $20 MILLION SPENT for removal of fish passage blocking culverts this year.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Last summer families in Port Angeles were putting up tents and camping in their back yards.

    The abysmal failure of the WA State Discover Pass? The cost, Families simply can’t afford to use WA State Parks.

    ———————————————————–
    *From: an online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    MY COMMENT
    Do you really think raising the gas tax and grabbing a piece of the pie, is the solution to increasing park attendance, for the jobless, working poor, economically starved people in Clallam County?

    MY COMMENT is the solution to providing free Public Viewing of WA State Parks just as a NOVA image on Television?
    ———————————————————————-
    THIS IS WHAT WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders ARE UP AGAINST
    ———————————————————————–
    *From: online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday).

    It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday.

    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!
    *online email comment name removed
    ———————————————————————–

    *Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias.
    ————————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) [mailto:Daniel.Farber@PARKS.WA.GOV]
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:50 AM
    To: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Subject: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Park Stakeholders,

    For your information, below is the latest report to park staff of issues affecting State Parks in the legislature.

    Daniel
    —————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Colleagues,

    I want to provide you a brief update on legislative doings since last week’s report.

    A. The Discover Pass and Agency Request Legislation:

    There is no change on the status of SB5897, which combines four major state parks related elements:

    1.The core of our agency request legislation (SB5653) which works to expand partnerships, expand the role of the Park Foundation, and link us more soundly to cultural celebrations, ethnic heritage and the arts.
    2.Discover Pass reforms (SB5289) that formalize existing practice of not requiring/enforcing the Pass when accessing through DNR and WDFW lands. There is no such change on State Parks lands. The bill also allows for wholesaling of the pass, if all three agencies agree.
    3.Establishing a set of performance measurements for state parks, and a reporting function to the legislature.
    4. Provides $5 million per year funding from the litter tax for 4 years to state parks.

    The bill passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee and now sits in the Rules Committee.

    Perhaps the last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House Appropriations Committee. SHB1935 is set as the first bill up for a public hearing in the House Hearing Room A. At this time we do not know or any amendatory language for that bill. But here is the most reasonable expectation:

    1 It will be similar to SB5897, however it is unlikely to include the litter tax provision.
    2.It may include some provision related to legislative oversight of the potential State Parks-Public Development Authority Co-Management at Fort Worden.
    B.Boating Safety

    SSB 5437 passed the Senate and the House, but in slightly different forms. It is now on the concurrence calendar in the Senate. The bill provides some law enforcement teeth when it comes to operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating alcohol.

    C. Snowmobile Funding HB2002 has passed the House and now sits in Senate Ways and Means. It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and allow our Commission to set other fees; enabling funding and services to improve to historic levels.

    D. Horse Park Authority A bill to expand the Authority from 7 to 11 members passed both chambers and is scheduled to be signed by the Governor on Monday. Our Commission appoints members to the Authority Board, but has little other relationship to the organization.

    E. Budgets There are no differences to report from last week. The latest versions of the budget proposals are:

    Operating Budget (General Fund or Other Tax Supported Funding)
    Governor Inlsee – $23.7 million
    House – $23.7 million
    Senate – $16.4 million
    Commission October Request – $27.2 million

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)
    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)

    I hope you find this report helpful. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.

    Take care,

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov

    This email and any responses may be subject to state public disclosure laws.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Clallam County Salt Creek Recreation area is a popular FREE ON DEMAND summer refuge for poor working  families.
    Give the WA State parks back to the counties and provide employment for the local people.

    ————————————————————————–
    It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and
    allow our Commission TO SET OTHER FEES

    This entry was posted in Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks,

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State Park Question?

    Posted on April 21, 2013

    Who is this “WE” who still wants? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS?

    Indeed, I asked a simple question?

    just to be clear, the question remains unanswered?

    ——————————————————
    RESPONSE
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    All,

    My name below is listed from an email headline that I wrote to State Parks staff. But just to be clear, I wrote none of the content of the below email. State Parks is not the “we” referenced by Ms. Hewett.

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov
    —————————————————————-
    FULL email TEXT INCLUDING QUESTION
    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ———————————————————————–

    BELOW, Who is this “WE” who still wants? It is not “WE THE PEOPLE”

    “We” still want $27 million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    The same “WE” who wrote
    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    Set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ——————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013
    Dear Colleagues,

    From: name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.

    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday). It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday. This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!

    name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.
    ———————————————————————–

    FOR CLARIFICATION
    Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias
    ———————————————————————–

    This entry was posted in Reasonable Man understanding, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks

    ———————————————————

    If you bothered to read this far, I have a few closing comments.

    I listened to you, you gave me TWO MINUTES.

    Round and round and round the table, I listened to you , most members? FOCUSED on what they “WANT “. And, what you wanted was MORE TAXPAYER MONEY! for what YOU “WANT”.

    It took a comment from a WA Parks, Whidbey Islander before the word “AFFORDABLE”  RECREATION was mentioned.

    A question to the WA Parks Fort Wardener, how much does it cost? total?

    The answer? We don’t keep track of it?

    FOLLOW THE MONEY?  We don’t keep track of it?

    Rep. Tharanger’s response… basically was, some from here, some from a grant there, more here, more from matching funds there.

    Rep. Tharanger’s response and I quote “Part of the Game”.

    Really? Following Taxpayer money? keeping track of the total amounts? grants? matching funds?

    THE TAXPAYER’S $$$$ MONEY’S IS ALL GONE FOR WA STATE PARKS? RECREATION? TOURISM? AND THE MILLIONS OF $$$ FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTAINACE? AND REPAIRS?

    “Part of the Game?” As a vested WA State taxpayer, perhaps someone in Olympia, could forward a copy of the WA State legislated rules for this WA Parks taxpayer money Game?

    ————————————————————————————————————

    Please visit my website for the

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER, designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” SAYS GERRY O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP.

    To be continues….

     

     

     


  • (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS?  (a new style  is being created?)

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS AND THE DISCOVER PASS  PARKING TICKETS  that are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. AND, for improper display of the pass. Both my sister and my daughter were ticketed on the same day for improper display

    PARKING TICKETS?

    PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    Confused?

    YOUR ignorance is no excuse?

    —————————————————————-

    PARKING TICKETS?

    COMMON REASONS TO USE THE EXPLANATION FORM 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS.

    NO DUH! The people that have lived in WA State most of their lives,  DON’T WANT TO PAY TO “DISCOVER” WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE. 

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS “TICKETS” Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass.

    An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white OR green  pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover Pass” written on the front of the white OR green pass.  A valid “Day Pass” is also available at each park.

     If the white pass has “WDFW” written on it, it is not a Discover Pass and is not valid for State Parks.

    1. Pay in full within 15 days. You may use electronic or phone payment options below.
    2. Request a hearing in writing as explained on the ticket within 15 days.
    3. Mail in an explanation in writing by completing and mailing the explanation form with payment and supporting documentation within 15 days.

    If you choose to mail in a written explanation you must use the Explanation Form, which is available by clicking here

    Common Reasons to use the Explanation Form 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY PASS PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    DISCOVERY PASS CONFUSION? WHAT CONFUSION?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    HAVE I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS?

    NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE  BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE, APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION TO  FOCUS ON THE DISCOVERY PASS, HATRED, PROBLEMS AND CONFUSION AND GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE  RECREATION AND TOURISM.

     to be continued…