On July 6, 2009 PEER (parent organization of Rangers for Responsible Recreation – one of its rangers is being interviewed by the US Senate today for National Director of BLM) issued an error filled news release advocating for the gutting of the CA OHV Program.
*******************************************************************
PEER NEWS RELEASE
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1214
*******************************************************************
PEER NEWS RELEASE
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1214
********************************************************************
As some of you know, BRC’s Don Amador spent over 100 hours in the summer of 2007 working with a core group from state parks, the OHV and green lobby, and the Governor’s Office on SB742 – a bill that would provide the state with an ecologically-balanced OHV program. At the end of the day, it got almost a unanimous vote of approval by the state legislature and was signed into law by the Governor. BTW – PEER opposed the bill.
Based on my recollection of some intense negotiations on SB742, and my review of the bill, here is my response to PEER’s bilge.
RESPONSE AND OVERVIEW
A bipartisan committee (GOP, Dems, Enviros, and OHVers) back in the early 1970s: created the 1971 Chappie-Z’berg Act. The bill provided a stable funding source of non-General Fund monies to help pay for trail maintenance, law enforcement, new riding areas, and safety/education. This concept is similar to other user pay/user benefit state programs such as Boating and Waterways where fuel taxes on gasoline burned by boaters is set aside for managing reservoirs and waterways. In a similar fashion, fuel taxes on gasoline burned while operating vehicles off-highway is set aside for managing off-highway vehicle recreation throughout California on local, state, federal and private lands.
According to the Revenue and Taxation Code, funds generated by off-highway recreation shall be used to for managing off-highway recreation, just as on-highway funds are used for highways.
Since the working group spent a lot of time discussing the following foundation block or tenet of SB742, let me restate it for the record… the bill says that the program is to support both motorized recreation and “motorized off-highway access to nonmotorized recreation.” SB742 states that priority should be given to grant projects that maintain existing OHV opportunity, and then give extra consideration to those projects which also provide motorized access to nonmotorized recreation.
BTW –I seem to remember that OHMVR staff said at a OHV meeting that that approx. 20-21 percent of the OHV fund comes from the new increased OHV reg. fees – not 12%
**************************************************************************
Highlights of SB742
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/sb%20742%20highlights%2011-21-07.pdf
**************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Read About CA OHV Laws
http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/ohvlawsbook-2008.pdf
***************************************************************************
I don’t think the legislature is paying much attention to PEER’s effort to defund the OHV program. At this time, I think we need to just be armed with the facts and be ready to stand up and defend our program when asked by someone about PEER’s false accusations and their ludicrous proposal to take OHV monies.
The General believes (and has stated on many occasions) that regular state parks should find a way to become a user pay/user benefit program such as Boating or Waterways or the OHMVR Division instead of relying on monies from the General Fund.
# # #
I don’t think the legislature is paying much attention to PEER’s effort to defund the OHV program. At this time, I think we need to just be armed with the facts and be ready to stand up and defend our program when asked by someone about PEER’s false accusations and their ludicrous proposal to take OHV monies.
The General believes (and has stated on many occasions) that regular state parks should find a way to become a user pay/user benefit program such as Boating or Waterways or the OHMVR Division instead of relying on monies from the General Fund.
# # #
Posts
