Washington’s State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)

Washington

I guess because I participated in the survey, I was sent a draft of the 2013 Comprehensive outdoor plan. If you go to page 31 (page 48 on your viewer) you can see our sport was ranked dead last in importance while frisbee golf ranked half way up the list. I haven't yet read deep enough to see how the survey was conducted, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the methods were slightly slanted. They also sent me a link to a townhall forum for new discussion regarding trail use and the use of NOVA funds.

http://scorpwa.files...eview_draft.pdf

http://www.watrailst....wordpress.com/

I got the same email. My understanding of NOVA funds is they get money from off road gas tax. So that money should only go to off road uses, and while I realize that driving a Suburu on a gravel road is 'off road', it seems IMO that not enough money goes towards motorized trails.

I suggest that this community participate in the townhall forums.

I posted a rather charged comment on how we were below Frisbee golf and how they are causing our riding areas to be unsafe due to over crowding and unmaintained trails. I'd like to see us put together a very angry letter or series of phone calls to our politicians in the capital about their discrimination against ORV riders in Washington State. I stated a lot of things that I've read on here and other places on how that most of us have stopped getting ORV tabs and refuse to ride in ORV authorized areas because they are dangerous and over priced.

I got the same email. My understanding of NOVA funds is they get money from off road gas tax. So that money should only go to off road uses, and while I realize that driving a Suburu on a gravel road is 'off road', it seems IMO that not enough money goes towards motorized trails.

The distribution formula is set by the Legislature and codified as RCW46.09.520

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.09.520

The current formula is based on a flawed study from about ten years ago.

It utilized a random survey that compared how much fuel people thought the used driving on nonhighway roads while traveling to nonmotorized recreation or just sightseeing to the amount of fuel used by ORV owners in their ORV.

The was no definition of what a nonhighway road is provided.

The amount of fuel burned on nonhighway roads while traveling to ORV areas was not counted.

At the time I had at least six motorcycles registered as ORV and the only one I recieved a survery for was my Z50.

Having heard similar stories from others makes me wonder just how random the survey realy was.

I would support a new study if I could be sure that it wouldn't be as intentionally flawed as the last one.

I suggest that this community participate in the townhall forums.

:thumbsup:

The distribution formula is set by the Legislature and codified as RCW46.09.520

http://apps.leg.wa.g...?cite=46.09.520

The current formula is based on a flawed study from about ten years ago.

It utilized a random survey that compared how much fuel people thought the used driving on nonhighway roads while traveling to nonmotorized recreation or just sightseeing to the amount of fuel used by ORV owners in their ORV.

The was no definition of what a nonhighway road is provided.

The amount of fuel burned on nonhighway roads while traveling to ORV areas was not counted.

At the time I had at least six motorcycles registered as ORV and the only one I recieved a survery for was my Z50.

Having heard similar stories from others makes me wonder just how random the survey realy was.

I would support a new study if I could be sure that it wouldn't be as intentionally flawed as the last one.

:thumbsup:

You mean you can't take 90% of your survey results from people outside of the Food Co-op?

Haha. Or stand outside the front door of REI.

Perhaps it would be better if the IRS conducted the survey :lol:

Some pretty reasonable comments so far, save for Kathleen... :banghead:

Good comments Shane.

There was a person on there that was pointing out some stats from 2002 fuel use survey and basically telling Dave Hiatt that he had no basisi for the claims he makes. This guy posted a link to the survey summary with a flow chart of Nova fund allocations AND a link to a WTA page that states ORV only contributes 20% of the fuel taxes but receives 80% of the funding and that ORV use is getting an in appropriate share.

I also thought that there was a sentiment that the 2002 fuel use study was flawed in that it did not define what was a "non-highway" road?

I agree though that it seems as if other user groups are as fed up as OHV users with the elitist wilderness whores...

A very good discussion there by almost everyone . Bottom line is that there should be plenty for everyone.

Joe

Only problem I got is that there should be LOTS more open to everyone. In 35yrs of offroading, I can count all the issues I've ever had on one hand. I've yet to see trail 'damage'...and adjusting a section of trail isn't that much work. Lots of volunteers cut the majority of the trails, and the FS/DNR can come through and get big timber and trim. Easy cheesy...I really don't see the problem other than there isn't more for everyone.

Oh yeah, trails don't need engineered bridges...nor a bed of gravel

Edited by Slackkinhard

Ugh. I am hesitant to comment on this one because funding issues make my head spin :crazy:! At least they could make it so I dont have to have 3 different passes to accsess WA trails.

Ugh. I am hesitant to comment on this one because funding issues make my head spin :crazy:! At least they could make it so I dont have to have 3 different passes to accsess WA trails.

IF they would post an accurate breakdown for where all our money currently goes, maybe we could come up with a plan...but we are the cash cow....nobody is gonna tell us the truth.

Ugh. I am hesitant to comment on this one because funding issues make my head spin :crazy:! At least they could make it so I dont have to have 3 different passes to accsess WA trails.

 

The state and federally managed land will always be funded seperately.

You really don't want the cluster that would take place merging their funding management.

 

As for the two state passes, you only need one for areas wher ORV use is legal.

So Tod you are proposing yet another pass?We shall call it the  OHV pass. You do realize that pass would not replace any other just used in conjunction with the current passes. :p  You know that is how the Government works.

 

Sorry couldn't help my self had to tease you a little.

Edited by waycrazy1

So Tod you are proposing yet another pass?We shall call it the  OHV pass. You do realize that pass would not replace any other just used in conjunction with the current passes. :p  You know that is how the Government works.

 

Sorry couldn't help my self had to tease you a little.

I don't mind being teased in the least bit, I definitely earn it, but I am not proposing another pass. :ride:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now