I got to thinking the other day about some ways to help keep the trails open. Some of them are far fetched, but I thought I'd throw them out there.

For a while now we have been up against major organizations with millions of dollars in their accounts. While we have great organizations to support us they are underfunded by comparison.

One of the ideas that I had that could bring more income to these organizations would be to require an "OHV" sticker to use national forest land. The sticker could be a $20 to $50 annual fee that would be used to fund trail repair and to fund organizations such as BRC, COHVCO, FOJ, ect. These fees could also fund current maps and trail designations. For example if you get a $50 pass $20 could go to National Forests, and the remaining $30 could be sent to an organization of your choice on a pre-approved list.

You have to buy a hunting license, a fishing license, and some places require a license to cut a Christmas tree. So why not an off road license?

I'm really torn on this. On one side I don't want to have to pay to use public lands On the other hand if this is a way to keep these lands open, and fund pro OHV organizations it might be a good thing. Another plus would be a reduction in illegal wheeling since a quick glance could verify whether they are a registered vehicle or not.

I've come to the realization that we might need to give a little to save a lot.

What say you? Like I said I'm not sure on this one, but it might be a preemptive strike against closures.

Discussion is a good thing - never know what may come of it.

How to go about resolving issues, the mix of actions funded with money, is a dilemma. I think there are enough of us willing to participate - but it is never a majority, that is human nature and why license fees are a better way in theory - but that same human nature prevents it from being a good way in reality.

My current thinking is we can't have a method that involves the government - or the funds get diverted by politics and legalities. Not that the idea is not good - its implementation is very messy.

Look what happened in California to the OHV funds that were being used in politically acceptable ways - let alone doing something that would have the "anti" forces screaming such as money to BRC. California OHVMR division has the difficult job of walking a political mine field, and when they finally make a little headway, the trust fund is stolen into the general fund with a government IOU left in the bank.

In the big picture, I see the Forest Service closures are being driven by directives from the bureaucracy. So today it is closure because of erosion and fish - might as well be tire noise or the color of vehicle paint scares the crickets - there will always be something when internal individuals/groups manipulate the system and it doesn't want you there. If it is tire noise - then have to speak that language and change tread patterns.

For erosion - by the time a directive is given - there is usually information out there on what to do about it because bureaucracy moves slowly and loves paper/studies/regulations. Any recovery program be it personal or community - it must be a plan of action.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24600/24650/Index_BMP_Field_Guide.htm
http://www.epa.gov/nps/roadshwys.html

As with any army, some take action, others provide support. Taking action is better, but funding the army is just as necessary.

I wouldn't consider it blasphemy at all. If there was a OHV permit/license, I'd pay for it however, I think what may be the largest drawback would be where the money actually goes, and how it is spent. Like chasinternet said, the funds would more likely than not get re-appropriated to fill in another state expendature.

I do think a national permit would be good, but would be hard to manage, and the government would take most of it for the BS of having to handle the money anyways.

Having to pay a use fee has better options though. It stays with the area that they charge the use fee for. By law, this money can not be sent anyplace else.

Todd

I think a user fee is a great idea. I've always advocated for it. For one, it LEGITIMIZES the activity, much like hunting and fishing licenses and their fees legitimize those activities. For another, it becomes kind of like a cash-cow for government coffers, making it less likely that it will ever be done away with, therefore making it that much more likely that the government will keep wanting it; therefore making it more likely that the government will continue to allow the activity, rather than prohibit it and close everything down.

The concern that the money will be used on something else other than OHV maintenance, though, is a good one and one that gives me concern as well. However, if the program can be set up to ensure that the funds remain with the OHV program, much like hunting and fishing license fees remain with wildlife management area funds, then it should work.

Just my 2 cents....