FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 20, 2006
Contact: Roy Stearns
(916) 654-7538
(916) 799-1036

Off-Highway Fuel Tax Study Released - Findings Inconsistent with Growth of OHV Recreation and Need for Funding

SACRAMENTO – California State Parks today released the State Fuel Tax Study and announced that further evaluation will be necessary because of the report’s statistically questionable results. Despite the best efforts of researchers, with a nearly 17 point margin of error, the study contradicts the actual growth and funding needs of off-highway vehicle trends in California. While OHV recreation has grown by more than 112 percent since 2001, the survey suggests that funding should be cut by more than 50 percent.

Daphne Greene, Deputy Director of the State Parks’ Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Division said, “The data suggests we cut the program funding by more than half at a time when off-highway vehicle recreation is growing significantly. To do such a thing would be irresponsible and does not make sense to us. We think a closer examination of this report and how we fund the program is needed before we take any action.”

The survey is supposed to be used to determine the level of funding for a major portion of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Program throughout California. In addition to support for the state’s OHV parks, monies are used for environmental restoration and law enforcement. Because of the contradictory results, State Parks will continue to review and evaluate the survey as we move forward.

“In addition to our State OHV parks, we also provide grants to local and federal agencies to support off-highway vehicle opportunities, education and environmental protection, restoration and law enforcement throughout the State,” added Greene, “and reducing funding would cut those efforts and that is not acceptable because the demand will not go away and is, in fact, increasing.”

The findings in the study suggest the fuel tax funding of the program could be reduced from $56.8 million to $27.1 million, a reduction of more than $29.7 million. With the findings inconsistent with the growth of the program, State Parks has concluded that a comprehensive evaluation of the basic methodology for how the program is funded in the first place must be undertaken.

Present day evidence of continued and explosive growth in the industry strongly suggests that the funding reductions presented in the latest survey will not work to sustain a viable OHV program at all need levels. For instance, annual off-highway vehicle registrations for non-street licensed vehicles have increased as follows:

• Annual registration for all Non-Street-Licensed Vehicles has gone from 479,178 in 2001 to 1,013,863 in 2006, an increase of 112 percent. (Includes dirt bikes, ATVs, dune buggies, sand rails and miscellaneous vehicles, and snowmobiles.)

• Going back further, from 1980 to 2006, total Non-Street-Licensed Vehicle Registrations have increased 331 percent.

• Visitation at the State Vehicle Recreational Areas has gone from 2.3 million in 2001 to 5.4 million in 2005, an increase of 135 percent.

When one considers the above data and the demand level for the State Vehicular Recreation Areas and grant assistance for local, state and federal stakeholders for management of the recreational uses on public lands, one must ask if it makes sense to implement the survey and cut the funding to all concerned by more than 50 percent. The above data strongly suggests the premise for how the program was funded from the beginning is flawed and requires review. With the newest survey data, it is clear a continuation of the status quo would not keep pace with the significant growth in off-highway recreation demand and seriously differs from stakeholders’ needs and expectations across the state.

Based on the new data and present recreational realities throughout the California, the OHMVR Division of State Parks believes the only prudent course of action at present is to call for a “time out” to begin an open and public process of examining the very premise of how this program is funded.

In the coming weeks and months, the OHMVR Division will be talking to all stakeholder groups and to elected officials to examine what courses of action should be taken. The goal will be to not act in haste, but rather, step back and begin a process of broadly examining how best to continue the funding of a program that was mandated through legislation in 1971 to meet the growing demand for well managed off-highway recreation balanced with environmental protection associated with off-highway use.

The survey -- Estimating the State Fuel Tax Paid on Gasoline Used in the Off-Highway Operation of Vehicles for Recreation – was prepared for California State Parks by a research team led by Louis Browning, ICF International, San Francisco. The information on fuel use and off-highway recreational activity was obtained from telephone surveys of 15,000 randomly selected California households from July to December 2003 and written diaries kept by California vehicle owners from April 2004 to March 2005.

########

It would be interesting to know how man OHV's dual use ag/recreation use. I have gas delivered to an above ground tank and all of my "toys" are filled up before I leave for a destination.

I didn't see anything about boats in the story. Trailerable boats are a major source of gas tax revenue.

The gas consumption estimates were based on type of vehicle and estimate of miles driven. Accuracy of "at the pump" receipt was not a requirement.

The study did try to different between "driving to recreate" and "driving for the purpose of recreation".

As such, engaging in activities such as hiking, fishing, swiming, waterskiing, etc, "driving to recreate" is not a form of "off-highway" recreation; it is simply a means to access other recreation areas or activities.

Basically, in 1990. there was an assumption that for every registered motorcycle, there were 5.9 unregistered motorcycles.

For every registered 4 wheel vehicle, there were 7.6 unregistered vehicles.

And, for every registered ATV, there were 2.5 unregistered ATV.

Over the course of time, for every registered vehicle, a corresponding count (5.9, 7.6, or 2.5) was added to the "unregistered" category. That maneuver resulted in a disproportionate large count of "OHVs" that did not exist.

BTW, the 1990 study was forced by the environmental community and it dedicated a percentage of the "unregistered" gas tax to be applied to restoration and law enforcement.

The OHV community has been arguing for over 10 years the formula is wrong and finally succeeded in getting a new fuel tax study. I have tried for the past three years to find a statistical link between the gas tax dollars and number of OHVs reported sold by manufactures and the gas tax dollars.

Several of us have suspected for a long time the funding scheme was based on "smoke and mirrors".

While the most visible result is the disproportionate count of motorcycles, which indicates they are less of an impact than previous study, the telling issue is the growth of 4x4 vehicles.

So, the real question comes out as to if the set-asides for law enforcement and restoration were skewed, should that impact the entire program? After all, the law enforcement and restoration amount is approximately half of the program and that was based on a false assumption.

:mad3: :shaking: Cutting funding is just what we need:shaking:

The information on fuel use and off-highway recreational activity was obtained from telephone surveys of 15,000 randomly selected California households from July to December 2003 and written diaries kept by California vehicle owners from April 2004 to March 2005.

Q:So was anyone on this board involved in this Survey ?

Q:Were these Randomly picked "people" even OHV owners ?

Q:Or did they just survey 15,000 people in San Fran.

If funding gets cut! It won't be the restoration and Enviromental projects that get cut. It will be the trails that we use that will feel the impacts.

How can you have less offroad fuel use when were seeing with our own eyes the increase in people on the trails. I say they need to redo there study

A copy of the study is available at:

http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/

The document provides a detailed description of how the participants were selected.

As noted in the study, there is a big discrepency between the current system and the results of the new study.

Clearly, the study pinpointed that the 1990 baseline was crafted on false assumptions that lead to grossly inflated values in as the years passed.

Basically, the current figures indicate there are more OHVs in existance now that there actually are.

Changes to the OHMVR program are expected as a result of this study.

[QUOTE=kf6zpl;6269936]"....Basically, in 1990. there was an assumption that for every registered motorcycle, there were 5.9 unregistered motorcycles.

For every registered 4 wheel vehicle, there were 7.6 unregistered vehicles.

And, for every registered ATV, there were 2.5 unregistered ATV.

Over the course of time, for every registered vehicle, a corresponding count (5.9, 7.6, or 2.5) was added to the "unregistered" category. That maneuver resulted in a disproportionate large count of "OHVs" that did not exist....."

If all of these machines were suddenly and 'unexpectedly' being ghost-like counted to our detriment....what has been done in these 17 long years to counter this ridiculous perception?

More accurate numbers by manufacturers in each category than previously given?

How about a 17 year-long effort by the off-road community to verifiably confirm exactly who among us visited (at the very least) OUR trailheads over that long period of time?

Maybe funding targeted nationwide focused on crunching these numbers....regardless of whether any one group suffered support-wise from the ever-changing results? (there will always be winners and losers within our community when scarce resources are allocated; yet why should these decisions be made without proudly pointing to what can very easily be figure out for ourselves through cooperation?).

"....BTW, the 1990 study was forced by the environmental community and it dedicated a percentage of the "unregistered" gas tax to be applied to restoration and law enforcement....."

Which begs a question I've asked for years.....just what percentage should that funding be set at (area/terrain dependent?) and who has the stones among us to champion these two important issues in the first place? (others being sustainable maintenance programs; safety; cross-sport multi-use access and pay-to-play with easily identifiable registration).

"....The OHV community has been arguing for over 10 years the formula is wrong and finally succeeded in getting a new fuel tax study. I have tried for the past three years to find a statistical link between the gas tax dollars and number of OHVs reported sold by manufactures and the gas tax dollars....."

Again, what numbers are we throwing back at them in regards to total vehicles sold (our area of expertise due to the close partnership we supposedly have with these manufacturers over many decades) vs the numbers we see registered and supposedly confirm/manipulate every day in building our "multi-use" political platforms?
What a great accomplishment it was for you guys to finally turn this around and uncover the stench; yet what is the next step?
Would the answer be HARD numbers published in each state as to who uses what, where and with how much comparative economic impact? (so that the term "shared trails" is finally a researched and proven multi-use reality instead of simply something non-profits solicit money around with absolutely NO cross-sport studies published on the subject itself?).
Again, so the allocation formula is somehow 'out of whack' with these supposed lies and misrepresentations....my question is....who (of any consequence leadership-wise) believes that it should be more or less...and by how much as related to all the other demands on that same funding?

"...Several of us have suspected for a long time the funding scheme was based on "smoke and mirrors". While the most visible result is the disproportionate count of motorcycles, which indicates they are less of an impact than previous study, the telling issue is the growth of 4x4 vehicles....."

If we are continually prevented from ever forcing our national orv leadership to acknowledge the political and access-related realities contained in the former....then we sure as heck aren't ever going to do anything but ineffectively label it as same going forward.
If the UFWDA is 'allowed' to speak up here in regards to "taboo" 60" trails and many other important issues (from the UFWDA website) http://www.ufwda.org/pdfs/APPEAL_HMNF_legalappeal.pdf
...then I'm sorry, but the public should be 'allowed' to speak here (from the NOHVCC website) http://nohvcc.org/forest/forest.asp on the same subject and not have simple question and answer periods excluded from the damn agenda.
Orv enthusiasts certainly have trouble finding the words NOHVCC and 60" trails in the same sentance (Google it) yet we certainly should be 'allowed' to obtain official public positions in regards to clearly defined multi-use planning from both 'my' workshop sponsors above and my government employees while I have both in the same room!
I have contacted the NOHVCC both locally (motorcycle dominated) and nationally regarding the 'rules' for this workshop as well as why there is no "Q and A" period included in its agenda as California has allowed in their forestry meetings. Needless to say and as of today?...this obviously seems to be one of the more 'difficult' questions that these guys have evidently fielded all year (almost as hard as asking why earlier meetings couldn't even be published on the state DNR or Forestry department websites....).

"....So, the real question comes out as to if the set-asides for law enforcement and restoration were skewed, should that impact the entire program? After all, the law enforcement and restoration amount is approximately half of the program and that was based on a false assumption...."

Great question that is obviously almost 17 years in the making.
So what is the community's position after all this time?
Or maybe the larger and more important questions is....is there a "community" or nationally approved published position on any of the historic orv issues we seem to be facing all around this country.... and on each and every day? :confused:

Generally, I tend not to engage in mindless point-counterpoint discussions.

The statement "If we are continually prevented from ever forcing our national orv leadership to acknowledge the political and access-related realities contained in the former....then we sure as heck aren't ever going to do anything but ineffectively label it as same going forward." Does deserve a response.

“If we are continually prevented from ever forcing our national orv leadership to acknowledge the political and access-related realities…”

Please, tell me exactly WHO is preventing YOU from expressing your opinions to “national leadership?

WHO is preventing YOU from becoming part of the solution?

In plain language, IF YOU ARE WILLING TO COME OUT INTO THE DAYLIGHT AND PARTICPATE IN CREATING A SOLUTION, by all means, step forward.

The “public” is free and clear to speak anytime they want to step forward and become involved.

So, the reality of the situation is that for almost 17 years, a myth has been perpetuated that has created a significant problem. That is the core issue involved.

The fact is, there is precious little data available from manufacturers to provide good hard data to refute the claims of 1990. AS noted in the study, the state of California only recently began differentiating between the different types of vehicle with their Department of Motor Vehicle registrations

Why is the ringer about the national travel management rule mixed with the CA Fuel Study Program? They are two entirely different issues.

My statement about one telling point of the Fuel Tax was the growth of 4x4 vehicles. That is statistically supported in the study.

It has nothing to do with the national travel management rule that groups ALL OHV (atv, dirtbike, and 4x4) into the same “OHV” category needing management.

Apparently, Traillegacy does not understand that NOHVCC is conducting a “workshop” for ALL motorized recreation and land managers. To equate those with what is happening in California (workshops being conducted BY THE AGENCY) is a fallacy. After all, the Forest Service hosted workshops are part of the public process required by NEPA and are the basis of the administrative record. Failure to participate in that process means you have give up your right to file suit if you do not like the results.

The NOHVCC workshop (yes, UFWDA participated in developing it) is geared towards providing the recreationist with information so that they can participate in the agency conducted workshops.

In closing, the questions:

“So what is the community's position after all this time?” is asked.

Answer: The STATE OHV community is working to accomplish legislative changes that will provide for a long term vial recreation program.”

Or maybe the larger and more important questions is....is there a "community" or nationally approved published position on any of the historic orv issues we seem to be facing all around this country.... and on each and every day?

Answer: Yes, there is an effort in progress called National Leadership Summit on Recreational Access. The third meeting is being arranged for May 2007. The NOHVCC workshops are one of the results of the last NLSRA meeting. BTW, AMA hosted the first, UFWDA hosted the second and will be hosting the third summit.

The fact remains that there are remaining issues and precious few resources to address them.

The plain fact is, to develop an effective program to counter the attack on recreation requires funding and involvement. People are willing to extend all levels of criticism and yet fail to provide assistance.

[QUOTE=kf6zpl;6312914]"Generally, I tend not to engage in mindless point-counterpoint discussions...."

You know, Mr. Stewart....this seems to be the attitude of every single national orv leader that I've yet to come across. Time and time again us mere 'peons' out here are met with the same "well, this is really 'beneath' me to offer a reply to your questions; but let me assasinate your character a bit while I ignore the simple facts presented here...."


"....The statement "If we are continually prevented from ever forcing our national orv leadership to acknowledge the political and access-related realities contained in the former....then we sure as heck aren't ever going to do anything but ineffectively label it as same going forward." Does deserve a response...."

Why I am so happy that you feel so....let's see how you do.

"...If we are continually prevented from ever forcing our national orv leadership to acknowledge the political and access-related realities…”

Please, tell me exactly WHO is preventing YOU from expressing your opinions to “national leadership?

WHO is preventing YOU from becoming part of the solution?..."

I have never put forth a question to any national orv leader which I have come in contact with that was responded to in kind when promised.
Either you are brushed off in the initial conversation (usually just about the time that anybody heavily involved in the AMA comes up) or you are slammed with one and one only nasty e-mail very clearly disparaging your character.

Nice guys (and gals) believe me.....

"...In plain language, IF YOU ARE WILLING TO COME OUT INTO THE DAYLIGHT AND PARTICPATE IN CREATING A SOLUTION, by all means, step forward...."

I would say that I've been very much in the daylight for going on 7 years now. "Partcipation" as you refer to it; has somehow always had a price attached to same involving looking the other way in regards to this individual or this significant amount of 'public' money (4 million dollars up for grabs now since last Novemeber, remember?).
Other states may not have the largest maintained trail system in this country or have this kind of money being spirited away behind privately closed doors (along with our HUGE ongoing fee increase about to be announced)....yet most states also have "out in the open" organizational structure in place (compare say, MI to WI)...which obviously doesn't invite the same kind of scrutiny that I'm starting to think that you also despise.

Come out into the daylight?
Who's the guy making it clear right from the start....that point/counterpoint discussion material (no matter how pertinent or timely)....is apparently well beyond your supposed stature on this board or more importantly in this 'community'?

"...The “public” is free and clear to speak anytime they want to step forward and become involved....."

If this is true...why can't I receive an answer from either my local NOHVCC (cough) 'leaders' or even the president himself over two simple questions:
#1) What are the aforementioned "ground rules" listed in the very first item on the Manistee National Forest Workshop agenda (this to save us all the 4 hour trip if we're only to be treated like we do in Lansing every 3 months)...and

#2)...when will the public's right to a simple question and answer period be listed in order that publicy stated multi-use related positions can be given by both sponsors and our govt. employees???.

No other forum has been provided for two-way communication with these people....and it's about time that this happens with (as mentioned earlier) so much at stake.

"...So, the reality of the situation is that for almost 17 years, a myth has been perpetuated that has created a significant problem. That is the core issue involved...."

Now you are just plain talking in circles.
If this 'myth' that you talk about (out of the blue) is somehow then and now this community's core problem...please simply explain yourself by giving us what the cross-sport numbers SHOULD actually be.

"...The fact is, there is precious little data available from manufacturers to provide good hard data to refute the claims of 1990. AS noted in the study, the state of California only recently began differentiating between the different types of vehicle with their Department of Motor Vehicle registrations..."

I'm sorry, but that is the biggest bunch of crap that I've heard in quite some time. Orv leadership has had absolutely no interest in tracking data over that unbelievably long period of time for the simple reason that it continually creates winners and losers within our so-called community in regards to how future multi-use planning SHOULD be addressed. You can't keep arguing for more "me-only" single-track if the numbers aren't there or the vast majority of enthusiasts out here believe in no one machine or organization (AMA) holding any kind of God-like control over the rest of us.

I love how you guys brag about being hand-in-hand with this manufacturer or this "non-profit" that very closely even represents same....yet deny every single time that you possess even the most basic of data affecting both them and us every single day.

It's b.s., Mr. Stewart...and you know it.
(Ran out of time. I will respond further when I have more to spare).

[QUOTE=kf6zpl;6312914]"....Apparently, Traillegacy does not understand...."

I'm telling you; these guys are as arrogant as they come....

"....that NOHVCC is conducting a “workshop” for ALL motorized recreation and land managers. To equate those with what is happening in California (workshops being conducted BY THE AGENCY) is a fallacy. After all, the Forest Service hosted workshops are part of the public process required by NEPA and are the basis of the administrative record. Failure to participate in that process means you have give up your right to file suit if you do not like the results.

The NOHVCC workshop (yes, UFWDA participated in developing it) is geared towards providing the recreationist with information so that they can participate in the agency conducted workshops...".

There are no other public workshops planned before the implimentation of these travel manangement plans; there were absolutely none offered here in Michigan during that process when "providing the recreationist with information" was needed most.....and to suggest that simple questions not be allowed 'now' so that workshop attendees may ask them 'later' when the horse has already left the barn and no further meetings are scheduled...frankly insults our intelligence. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hiawatha/revision/2006/newsletters/HNF_FPR_Newsletter_May06.pdf (tell me when/where these "agency conducted workshops" will be held after reading the lead article).

Again, we have literally millions of orv dollars in limbo right now here in Michigan and individuals such as Mr. Stewart salivating over just who will receive same through both our recently unfrozen orv fund and an upcoming huge increase in user fees. We have taken embarassingly poor care of Michigan's present trail system through ridiculously low priced stickers for decades now and I believe that Mr. Stewart, as UFWDA's "environmental" guy....knows this all to well also.(we at one time had these cycle guys proposing that we close down trails for "study" while building new ones right next to them because of how 4-wheelers had irrepairably damaged same 'beyond repair'.....).

We need use this money to fix what we already have and build a sustainable maintenance system....not create "you just sit there and listen" workshops where two-way interaction is forbidden and new ideas are suppressed because the monetary 'gravy train' is just about to hit the station.

I will respond to the rest of Mr. Stewart's post later.

[QUOTE=kf6zpl;6312914]"...In closing, the questions:

“So what is the community's position after all this time?” is asked.

Answer: The STATE OHV community is working to accomplish legislative changes that will provide for a long term vial recreation program.”...."

"Wow"...you could seriously run for some type of political office with that age-old well worn stock answer.
What 'state' are you referring to and and what legislative changes are in the works which will provide this?
The last time we had a 'legislative change' here in Michigan regarding orv issues...a bunch of anonymous user groups showed up at our state orv advisory board meeting refusing to give specifics as to exactly how and where those major changes would take place.
Is the work you refer to above just as secretive and accomplished with the same "necessary" bag over their heads?

"...Or maybe the larger and more important questions is....is there a "community" or nationally approved published position on any of the historic orv issues we seem to be facing all around this country.... and on each and every day?

Answer: Yes, there is an effort in progress called National Leadership Summit on Recreational Access. The third meeting is being arranged for May 2007..."

Fantastic.
Now in contrast to Michigan's orv leaders, who have insisted publicly that they all remain anonymous(please Google the "22,000 member" Michigan Motorized Recreational Council and tell me what you find)....who exactly are the folks participating here; what kind of contact info is availiable and where can the detailed minutes of these first two meetings be found?
National leaders participating in recreational access summits = good.
National leaders participating in recreational access summits given the same attitude that arrogant Michigan orv leaders have had for decades.....'bad'.
We all look forward to the published minutes of said meetings being linked here for our convenience; as I am sure that every participant's home website contains same already for the purpose of of generating intelligent discussion that could be brought back to the all-important third meeting on the subject at hand.

"... The NOHVCC workshops are one of the results of the last NLSRA meeting. BTW, AMA hosted the first, UFWDA hosted the second and will be hosting the third summit...."

Now let me get this straight.
The proposed Forestry Service Land Management (drastic) changes have been on the horizon and barreling down on us like a freight train for how long(?)....yet you are telling me that workshops designed to "educate" us on these matters was not ever proposed until you hosted the second and very last summit?
And I'm not supposed to question or even so much as mention the absence of simple question and answer periods set aside in the agendas of these workshops...yet many of the travel management rules are already in effect and indeed already being implimented?

What did the "AMA" propose at the very first meeting of these individuals?
Please don't tell me that it was take a 'wait and see' attitude in regards to simply giving us even the most basic of skills needed to communicate effectively with these people DURING this hugely historic and landscape-changing process...which seems to be what we are getting here in 2007 AFTER the horse has already effectively left the barn! :rolleyes:
(you want me to travel 4 hours to your workshop...yet not ask any questions as to what you negotiated for the orv community without the opportunity of public discussion between even the two of us?....where do I sign up?:shaking: ).

"... The fact remains that there are remaining issues and precious few resources to address them...."

If any of these national orv organizations had absolutely any interest in including us mere 'peons' out here on those issues; the resources WOULD be there and the cross-sport community that never was would be involved in them.
These people have scared away so many good people over the years (again, look at Michigan's participation rate/structure compared to any other state/trail system of comparitive size) that younger age and youth involvement in these critical issues has become almost non-existant. (TrailLegacy has been greedily bastardized to the same degree that "shared trails" became nothing but a money-raising moniker that certainly nobody would be 'allowed' to fight for).
Again, many of these fine people are not coming back and are just plain sick of what it takes to become involved this century on even the most simplest of issues we should of quit arguing decades ago.

"...The plain fact is, to develop an effective program to counter the attack on recreation requires funding and involvement. People are willing to extend all levels of criticism and yet fail to provide assistance...."

We're here to assist you in any way possible, Mr. Stewart.
What you have to do now (today) is effectively clean your own non-profit house in order that we may start sending in our money and/or contributing our time....without being browbeaten for the effort.(we realize that no one man should be allowed to create policy if he does not possess the numbers behind him; yet no man should be treated with pure arrogance and disrespect just because he questions said policy either....and that is what we are saddled with today).

Here's yet another gem:

Check out the term expiration dates for these two die-hard cyclists running one/two seniority-wise (by far) on our state orv advisory board. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_22654-73974--,00.html

One is the chairman working on his second unannounced/expired term....while the other occasionally makes the following type of outbursts which (evidently) the NOHVCC is supposed to waste our limited resources mentioned above on. (go to the last page under Glenn Moll)http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/November2006DraftMinutes_179305_7.pdf

("Uhhhh, 'alrightee' then...who's going to give me a motion to adjourn this thing?....")

Again, so much as question any of this... or obviously even the most basic of procedural matters involving this riding/driving public's right to be heard by conscious representation....and you better expect to be attacked immediately by every damn non-profit leader in this country who ever drew a paycheck or wrote a weekend off from one.

I'd also relate the story of a representative (quote/unquote) orv 'leader' who once called for the banning of all side-by-sides (UTVs) if they damn well didn't start regulating them.....but alas, that is yet another story for those unconcerned with Mr. Stewart's assertions above.

http://www.ufwda.org/nlsra/?1

or

http://www.muirnet.net/NoteTaker/UFWDA.ntweb/?45

The "first" NLSRA was conducted in 2000, with the expressed purpose of putting together a plan for recreation under the newly elected Bush administration.

I am not going to defend past actions of the various efforts. All have been missing one critical factor: follw-up.

Guess what, the OHV community is more organized today than it was in 2000 or even in 2004 or even in 2005.

Have mistakes been made? Yes. Have there been successes? Yes.

The Forest Service Travel Management Plan is apparently a sensitive issue with you. It is with a number of us.

UFWDA has been fighting that Travel Management since 1995. They filed suit and stopped previous planning which resulted in the new rule in 2004. Prior to that, California began a route designation process.

Under the national rule, Forest Service developed a training program for their employees. And, a group composed of Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Forest and a couple of other allied groups began hosting their version of training for the public and Forest employees.

That is one of the issue that brought OHV leadership back for the "2nd" NLSRA. Out of that, the NOHVCC workshops happened. Yes, it was too late for several places. You cite it being useless to Michigan. Well, it was about the same with California.

Yes, it is a shame that few people are taking the issues seriously. The Two Trackers 4WDC is one club in Michigan that has managed to salvage some 4x4 opportunity.

Right now, the OHV leaders in CA are beginning to take the issues serious. State leaders in New Mexico are taking the issues serious. As are state OHV leaders in Colorado, Utah, and a few other state.

I could go one with issues in New England and the South where OHV leadership is trying to approach issues with a united front: 4x4, ATV, and motorcycle communities combined.

It does come down to the number of people that are committed enough to spend the time to attempt to make a difference. And, it does come down to a core issue: $$$$$

And, it is counter-productive to split forces. Splitting forces in Michigan did not result in a recreation plan that addressed the needs of all.

The OHV recreation community is struggling to become organized. Organization is more important now than ever before. Financial support for organizations is more important now than ever before.

Guess what, the OHV community is more organized today than it was in 2000 or even in 2004 or even in 2005.


I completely disagree with this statement.

The OHV community is NOT more organized, the different factions, 4X4, 2 Wheeler, and Duner groups are more organized.

As a whole, the OHV Community is still fragmented.

Why do you ask?

The Duners were asked to the first meetings about Surprise Canyon and didn't show. Glamis, ISDRA, is getting bombarded with law suits, I didn't see any Rock Crawlers at thier meetings.

Until all aspects of OHVer's get together under one umbrella, it is a lost cause because the funds are split over to many areas.

Please don't tell me the "Off Road Community" is more organized, that is wishful thinking.

In my opinion, the special interest media covering all aspects of OHV's has been sorely lacking in supporting a unified front. The fact that there are 2 or three people on line here and 70+ at the chit-chat site is proof positive that the majority of OHV owners are apathetic and are always waiting for the other guy to defend their turf.

I'd like to respond in detail later; yet I'll ask this question 'once again' of Mr. Stewart:

How does condescendingly "informing" all of us at these workshops actually occur.....when nobody attending same is evidently allowed to ask questions or expect answers to even the most basic of questions involving how you are actually representing us on these hugely important multi-use issues?

Would you like to know how I was treated for so much as 'daring' to inform the NOHVCC (and BRC) that a simple workshop registration date was in error and indeed PREVENTING many enthusiasts from ever attending?

As the two posters above above alluded to in both your overall coverage of the issues which affect us regionally/nationally and the outright fallacy of us being more organized than ever....you are frankly blowing more smoke here than many of your future contributors (IMO) will put up with.

Sorry, but I have never liked the "have there been failures?...yes...have their been successes....yes"; tired old political double-talk line; as the statement NEVER ultimately addresses the historically driven former for the purposes of learning from the constantly regurgitated past repeating itself over and over.
In other words, the same old issues have been bogging us down from day one.....and the only people standing in the way of these ever being put behind us are those hoping to please 'everybody' (along with whoever writes their non-profit paycheck) at the expense of true cross-sport multi-use cooperation.

I will respond back to the rest of Mr. Stewart's comments when I get the time and just want to thank primergrey for being the first person I've ever witnessed who simply told it like it is and should be in regards to our support for folks like him. (we shouldn't have to 'apoligize' for demanding that OHV leadership talk to us straight up; as opposed to the politico talk that we've once again just witnessed above).

"...And, it is counter-productive to split forces. Splitting forces in Michigan did not result in a recreation plan that addressed the needs of all...."

I would also like Mr. Stewart (of the UFWDA) to explain in detail this statement also.

Everything that is flat out wrong within our sport (nationally) can be explained very simply given the present state of affairs here in Michigan. Google any other trail system of comparitive size out there or even compare us to Wisconsin (organization-wise) right across the pond.
This is what ouitright arrogance and an unwillingness to cooperate or answer pointed questions does to an off-road community...and national leaders such as the above?...are damn well aware of that fact.

]"..Until all aspects of OHVer's get together under one umbrella, it is a lost cause because the funds are split over to many areas.

Please don't tell me the "Off Road Community" is more organized, that is wishful thinking[/B].

Thank you.
Every one of these guys taking our money presently realize that at least one of them will most likely be out of a job if the former above happens. Standing up like a man for cross-sport multi-issues and touting 'shared trails' possibly looks good on the website or even on your letterhead...but it certainly isn't worth actually fighting for if same jeopardizes even one of the jobs at these "good 'ol boy" non-profits.(you shouldn't be able to collect money for multi-use trails if you can't/won't explain just why one group has some kind of God-given right to arrogantly/sneakily lobby single use to the exclusion of all others....plain and simple).

....just want to thank primergrey for being the first person I've ever witnessed who simply told it like it is and should be in regards to our support for folks like him. (we shouldn't have to 'apoligize' for demanding that OHV leadership talk to us straight up; as opposed to the politico talk that we've once again just witnessed above).

Don't thank me, I got out of Off Roading and LU because of the shit I am hearing from various orgs I used to belong to.

I am a Lifetime member of the BRC, I sure wish I could get that money back from those ripoff artists, and when I asked them for some help at Corral Canyon I was told; "We depend on the local people to pick up the stuff that falls off our plate." Hello? I pay for you to help me asshole!

SD4W was holding meetings with the Forrest Service about rerouting Bronco Peak at Corral Canyon with out any Public input. Excuse me, when did this become your Private Playground?

TDS was informed of the geothermal project out at Truckhaven and didn't bother to inform any of us that use the area also.

Since when did it become ok for Clubs and LU orgs, that I don't belong to, speak for me?

Good luck in the future people! You are in for a rough ride!!

I completely disagree with this statement.

The OHV community is NOT more organized, the different factions, 4X4, 2 Wheeler, and Duner groups are more organized.

As a whole, the OHV Community is still fragmented.

Why do you ask?

The Duners were asked to the first meetings about Surprise Canyon and didn't show. Glamis, ISDRA, is getting bombarded with law suits, I didn't see any Rock Crawlers at thier meetings.

Until all aspects of OHVer's get together under one umbrella, it is a lost cause because the funds are split over to many areas.

Please don't tell me the "Off Road Community" is more organized, that is wishful thinking.

I don't know about California specifically but I do believe there is a step in the direction of "OHV" joining together. I know Arizona is making significant movement in that direction. The Arizona OHV Coalition has 15,000 members from ATV clubs, Dirt Bikes, 4x4 clubs, dealers (mostly ATV & dirt bikes)......... volunteers from ALL groups are stepping up to workgroups, partnerships, meetings and political "stuff". (I use that word loosely) This has been within an 18 month time span.

As far back as 2002 (?) the "ROCK CRAWLERS" and non-duner 4x4's DID attend the ISDRA meetings....... at least in Arizona. This was not a few........... Rock Crawlers and non-duners filled almost half of the auditorium. We have written letters in support of ASA and will continue to do so.

Yes, as a whole, the OHV community is fragmented but it IS getting better. The ATV and bike groups are forming clubs and organizing better. If we all continue only looking out for our specific section of OHV recreation we all lose. It will take all of us together to win these battles.

Sometimes maybe "WISHING" works...............

[QUOTE=primergray;6354435]Don't thank me, I got out of Off Roading and LU because of the shit I am hearing from various orgs I used to belong to. I am a Lifetime member of the BRC, I sure wish I could get that money back from those ripoff artists.."

It is frankly amazing to me that so many important land use issues can be brought up here on this post one after the other...with little response from anyone but primergrey and myself claiming that we've simply had enough.

For gosh sakes people....how many decent folks have our (quote/unquote) "leaders" scared away over the years?

I've acquired a quad; side-by-side and now a FJ over the years and have researched each sport almost daily for signs of mature and/or professional acting orv leaders that one could simply partner with politically as a meaningful hobby.

And who did I find?

I think that pg's obvious frustration above pretty much answers that question.

[QUOTE=kf6zpl;6344506]http://www.ufwda.org/nlsra/?1

or

http://www.muirnet.net/NoteTaker/UFWDA.ntweb/?45

"The "first" NLSRA was conducted in 2000, with the expressed purpose of putting together a plan for recreation under the newly elected Bush administration. I am not going to defend past actions of the various efforts. All have been missing one critical factor: follw-up...".

C'mon, Mr. Stewart.
If our leaders are spending literally thousands of dollars (of whose money?) in getting together at some wrote-off non-profit conference...and absolutely NOTHING is followed up on....shouldn't the folks putting a roof over the heads of these very same 'leaders' question the very same methods already put forward in this thread with no obvious answer given?

I could cobble the the damn list above in short order and talk about it for hours while my kids played by the pool at some warm location in the dead of winter....yet the question has always been for me...who exactly stands up at these things to demand that the agendas be moved forward? (and be damned about whose 'feelings get hurt' in the process?).

"...Guess what, the OHV community is more organized today than it was in 2000 or even in 2004 or even in 2005....."

I think that primergrey has pretty much answered that bogus assertion above and I need only add that the type of anonymous and arrogant organization that I personally have witnessed here in Michigan at the largest system out there...certainly doesn't qualify as an 'improvement'.:shaking:
Tell me something, Mr. Stewart....are any of YOUR member organizations involved in this super-secret MMRC council driving orv policvy behind closed doors up here and claiming that they can't even reveal their names....much less how they are actually representing us with all these literally millions on the line here presently?

And if this is the type of organizational structure that you do indeed admire....how is it encouraging our young people or even the average 'peon' enthusiast like myself....to get involved or create any kind of meaningful legacy?

Tell me something:
Have you ever driven many miles to attend public orv meetings and been shouted down right in the middle of your alloted public speaking period with an outright bogus assertion that you were not even allowed the time to speak any further?
How about outright locked out of the ability to make a public appearance for 6 months at a time....with absolutely no public orv info released for yet another two months?

I'm sorry, Mr. Stewart...but these are the same arrogant fellow cronies that every one of these 'leaders' slap on the back with a smile at the same non-profit conferences you mention above year after year after year.

And I, for one, am sick of it.

[QUOTE=Sandee;6354695]"...I know Arizona is making significant movement in that direction. The Arizona OHV Coalition has 15,000 members from ATV clubs, Dirt Bikes, 4x4 clubs, dealers (mostly ATV & dirt bikes)......... volunteers from ALL groups are stepping up to workgroups, partnerships, meetings and political "stuff"..."

I very much applaud and appreciate these efforts; as I can actually Google these people and even surf their website to learn more about their efforts and contact the folks involved.

In contrast; our supposed multi-use council here in Michigan has been anonymously operating for much longer than this with absolutely no public positions given involving literally millions of dollars...and claim to represent over "22,000" of us.

You cannot stop individuals from operating outside of the constraints of their registered non-profits or even flat out refusing to give their contact out while they sit on state representative boards.(as the snowmobilers here in Michigan do with pride).

Yet when you approach these national orv organizations supposedly representing 'us' (as primergrey found out very bluntly with his wasted dollars) and they treat you with this stinking 'how dare you question my buddies from Michigan' arrogance....it isn't hard to see why these national non-profits haven't made a dramatic impression on many of us out here when it comes to true cross-sport multi-use issues. (if they'll defend representation not willing to even give their damn names or contact info...what chance in heck do you have of getting help when you need it...as primergrey quickly found out?).

"...As far back as 2002 (?) the "ROCK CRAWLERS" and non-duner 4x4's DID attend the ISDRA meetings....... at least in Arizona. This was not a few........... Rock Crawlers and non-duners filled almost half of the auditorium. We have written letters in support of ASA and will continue to do so....."

We had one atver; one cyclist and a handful of full size guys attend our only QUARTERLY public meetings immediately after these guys showed up for the first time ever claiming that they had absolutely no structure; they couldn't tell you exactly who they were or what they believed in and that basically...'this is the way it is going to be'.

Again, I envy and value that kind of turnout....yet if you can't look at Michigan as a prime example of the exact opposite effectively scaring away every good person simply demanding openness for decades now....how doees one HUGE state's sordid story...not effect the supposed nationwide effort here (your comments immediately below) or effectively poison the whole bunch?

"...Yes, as a whole, the OHV community is fragmented but it IS getting better. The ATV and bike groups are forming clubs and organizing better. If we all continue only looking out for our specific section of OHV recreation we all lose. It will take all of us together to win these battles...."

C'mon.
I had to quit the only decent-sized 'elected' atv group in the state because they just simply wouldn't form a political platform or tackle the simplest of issues facing us. Low and behold; then came the cyclists quickly attempting to fill that ideological vacuum with an insistence that we forever forsake 60" trail widths and join them as a sub-chapter for yet even more single-use brainwashing.

The community is fragmented (and always will be) because not enough people have had the stones to speak out AGAINST those fragmenting that yet un-reachable goal on a daily basis with their back-stabbing tactics.

Why should I attend meetings or get involved in any way, shape or form....when un-elected representation or anonymous councils are accepted by every orv community member...right on up to the national level?

With the more important question being...do you somehow believe that our kids (the future of our sport) view this as being any more attractive than we do?

While I respect the fact that many on here have local issues involving Mr. Sewart's assistance and that he is obviously providing same to our so-called nationwide "community" ....why do simple questions asked here involving public land east of the Mississippi receive the obvious cold shoulder?

If this community can't intelligently discuss the underfunding of its largest trail sytem or (god forbid) the subject of "pay-to-play" regarding the most massive (in the case of Michigan) of resources we are obligated to become stewards over....who in the heck are we in relation to 100% DESERVED scrutiny by others?

Love the sport....absolutely hate this kind of intellectual apathy and even more the somehow accepted premise continually dished out by our national leadership that things are about to be turned around very soon without major changes as to how they've operated for decades now.

Mr Traillegacy:

The two most recent topics on this forum deal with issues in the east and in the west.

As luck would have it, I am in the west and in the midst of the Truckhaven issues as a member of the Tierra del Sol 4WDC.

And, Paragon has not been ignored. UFWDA has a meeting with Kyle today.

In addition, there are on-going issues in New Mexico, Mass., Florida, Wisconsin, Minn. and Missouri. I could actually name every state that has a national forest as having an issue UFWDA is involved in.

And, yes there is a massive underfunding of the USFS and the BLM. Between them, they have contol over almost all OHV recreation opportunity.

All pf the national (and state) OHV organizations you have been denigrating ARE working to change the system.

If you want to engage in meaningful dialog, start a thread with a singular topic and seek comments for discussion.

A single post with multiple rants and acquisitions is not meaningful discussion.

[QUOTE=kf6zpl;6409575]"Mr Traillegacy:
The two most recent topics on this forum deal with issues in the east and in the west.
As luck would have it, I am in the west and in the midst of the Truckhaven issues as a member of the Tierra del Sol 4WDC.
And, Paragon has not been ignored. UFWDA has a meeting with Kyle today....."

If this is your response to my earlier statement....
"...why do simple questions asked here involving public land east of the Mississippi receive the obvious cold shoulder?..."

....it's not hard to see why we are frustrated out here in regards to national orv leaders re-directing every single question ever put forward to them.

I ask why PUBLIC land issues are obviously off-limits to both you and your colleagues when it comes to these very simple 'right-to-know' questions involving how you folks represent us...and we get thrown back some kind of bogus unrelated 'bone' regarding a private park!
For example:
If you do not feel the need to explain yourself in commentary regarding the largest maintained trail system that we operate presently:

"...Splitting forces in Michigan did not result in a recreation plan that addressed the needs of all...."

.....how can you in good conscious ask us to reach into our pockets over ridiculous statements, such as this(?):

"...Guess what, the OHV community is more organized today than it was in 2000 or even in 2004 or even in 2005....."

Again, it is hard to imagine any one us falling for these kind of re-directed answers or statements that admittably describe us as falling apart on major issues at the largest venues...but by gosh 'improving' every year so long as this 'united' community keeps their wallets out and their weak attention directed away from these so-called 'leaders' behind the curtain.

I truly do believe, John; that you are a good man trying your damnest (for years, obviously) to sort this situation out. It's just that when questions arise as to the character of the very people you claim to be 'partnering' with...I think that you have a responsibility (along with every other national orv leader) to explain what that 'unified' position actually is, so that more us could actually rally around same for the first time. (as Denis 4x4 so eloquently put it above: "..In my opinion, the special interest media covering all aspects of OHV's has been sorely lacking in supporting a unified front...").

"...In addition, there are on-going issues in New Mexico, Mass., Florida, Wisconsin, Minn. and Missouri. I could actually name every state that has a national forest as having an issue UFWDA is involved in...."

Again, John....we all know that there are 'issues' out there and that each state has them. The questions was (again): why do we get the cold shoulder from those reaching into our pockets when we ask the simplest of questions regarding them....and even colder yet when they involve folks you meet at these non-profit gatherings where everybody's a hero and nobody's running 22,000 member anonymous councils?

"...And, yes there is a massive underfunding of the USFS and the BLM. Between them, they have contol over almost all OHV recreation opportunity....."

And this is where "I" believe that you're dead wrong!
What does funding at the BLM or the USFS have to do with 'us' standing up for legacy-driven issues (such as pay-to-play and sustainable maintenance programs) that would take much of this burden away from these departments and help solve our problems with these greenies at the same time?
Every one of these national orv leaders point with pride to Michigan while arrogantly demanding that we be satisfied with paying $16.25 per year to maintain over 3,000 miles of trail (soon to approach 4,000) while at the same time backing up idiots here claiming that trails have been irrepairably ruined by 4-wheelers and should be shut down for "study"...while they beg for a new plan calling for $3 out of every $25 to be skimmed off for subsidized training! (by the same 'leaders' charging parents to sit in on their kid's training classes and charging the state $60 per kid to 'administer' not teach that same class in the past).

You're the one evidently not willing to stand up here and answer simple questions about these guys, John....we're the ones simply questioning just how these people get away with being so secretive/anonymous and just where the literally millions both you and I know that are presently on the table....are going to go.

"...All pf the national (and state) OHV organizations you have been denigrating ARE working to change the system...."

Are they working to change a system here in Mchigan where orv representation remains anonymous?
Are they working to maybe forcing these same people into standing up like men and revealing their contact info as the snowmobilers here do with pride and not a second thought?
Are they working to bring any issues now closed-door decided at the largest sytem they claim responsibility for ....or are the peon enthusiasts out here being driven away constantly not worth 'fighting for' in your opinion? (hey, even Polaris tried to come in here 'once' to stand up to these guys and more importantly even the exact same 60" trails that are brought up in your Manistee National Forest complaint...needless to say, this cut and run left everyone here in Michigan who supported finally seeing true multi-use cooperation 'high and dry' also).

Love people working hard....don't care for folks who lack the stones to speak out against just what isn't right and which more importantly paints all of us as unwilling to fix and maintain what we affect every day....regardless of the cost.

"...If you want to engage in meaningful dialog, start a thread with a singular topic and seek comments for discussion....."

I can see your point...yet which issues would you like to talk about under these new and separate headings that were apparently 'off limits' earlier?
Would you like to start with national orv leadership finally coming down on one side or the other regarding this 'community' actually working together on true multi-use 60" trail sytems maintained by both for and non-profits....regardless of whose 'power' this may affect?.

Not telling you what to do, John....yet do you really want to encourage folks to post topics on here which question exactly why we've been treading water in this truly divided orv community for all these years and exactly who is responsible for this? (maybe simply not responding at all and allowing this sordid mess to fall right on off the board....would be a better move for both you and those you defend without question).