Showing posts with label nps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nps. Show all posts

Friday, July 17, 2009

STAYING ALIVE - Update on CA Budget Battle and OHV/State Parks


As Ruth Coleman, Director of California State Parks, gave her views yesterday on the current status of the CA budget mess to the OHMVR Commission, I was reminded of the title of the famous disco song – Staying Alive.
*************************************
Photo at right: State Park Director - Ruth Coleman (2nd from Left)
*************************************


Yesterday, on behalf of the BlueRibbon Coalition, The General attended an OHMVR Commission meeting in Sacramento. The high or low point (depends on how you look at it) of the meeting was Coleman’s rather grim presentation on the potential closure of many regular state parks units and/or the gutting of her department.

She pointed out those park units which are funded through special funds (SVRAs and lakes and reservoirs), and receive no general fund dollars, appear to be safe from closing. This is because these parks are funded by the people who use them under the user pay/user benefit model. OHMVR and Boating and Waterways are two such examples.

On the other hand, she believes many non-special fund state park units could still be subject to closure if lawmakers cannot find a way to resolve the 26 billion dollar shortfall. Coleman’s Deputy for Administration told the group they had looked at raising park fees but they would have to TRIPLE entrance and camping fees to come up with the 72 million dollars they need to stay in business. However, this scenario won’t help because if fees were raised by that amount you would drive folks away from the parks (and hence decrease any potential fiscal benefit from the increase in fees) and it would functionally exclude lower income families from enjoying those facilities.

Since state park employees are not allowed to lobby for their programs, Coleman and staff kept their presentation very matter-of-fact and did not tell the OHV commission/community what to do. It is my impression reading between the lines that the operations side of the OHV Program is safe from being raided. However, the grants portion of the program (i.e. grants to FS, BLM, counties, law enforcement, etc) could still be vulnerable in future budget cycles. At this time, I think the legislature maybe hesitant to steal dedicated funds from user-pay/user-benefit programs because it sends a horrible message to the public and would kill future support for any such endeavors.

At the end of the day, I can’t tell you when this budget mess will be fixed. It could be this weekend or in 3-4 weeks. It is my impression that regular state parks must become entirely self-funded. One such option that appears to be on the table is a $15 dollar/yr. surcharge (some would call it a use-fee or tax) that would be charged on every vehicle when the owner renews their registration. An alternative could be either an Op-Out (where you have to decline to pay the fee at time of paying your renewal) or an Opt-In (where you have to accept the additional fee at time of registration). Another option could be for state parks to continue efforts to gain corporate sponsorships for some or all of the units. Also, the National Park Service could take over management of several joint state/fed units such as Redwood National and State Parks in Northern California (not a good option for recreationists and access in my opinion since the NPS has a preservationist agenda vs. the more recreation/people friendly approach).

I think riders need to continue to monitor this process and send in letters of concern to your legislators as the spirit or OHV alerts move you.
The CA budget saga continues...
# # #




Thursday, July 2, 2009

National Park Service Take Over of State Parks is Bad Idea


The General has received a number of questions from the field regarding the proposal by the National Park Service to take-over a 6 or more units of the California State Park System including the state portion of the Redwood National and State Parks in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.
*********************************
NYT-Greenwire Story


*************************************


To some folks it may seem like a good idea. However, in my opinion it creates a number of recreation and access issues. Though some NPS units offer mostly non-motorized recreational opportunities, many NPS units manage their facilities as quasi-Wilderness areas where even non-motorized public access and use is discouraged.

For example, most of the public recreational opportunity (including hiking, fishing, mountain biking, and equestrian use) occurs on the state units of RNP. On the NPS lands, the feds appear to discourage public use via the small amount of trails available for non-motorized use, lack of staging/parking areas, onerous regulations, etc.

Also, if you think working with state parks is difficult… just try to “work” with the NPS in CA. In a late 1990s RNP plan amendment, the NPS stated in the document that their anti-access agenda would put the local commercial surf fisherman … “out of business.”

As politicians debate the budget in Sacramento, it would be my recommendation for them to look at implementing a “user-pay/user-benefit” program for regular state parks.
Those self-funding tools could include an increased entrance fee (such as a 15-20 dollar annual tag for your car, increased camping fees, etc.). What the public won’t support is an across-the-board fee for ALL vehicles regardless of if they use the park or not. Fees collected should be used for park-related on-the-ground public services.

At the end of the day, a take-over by the NPS of our state park units is unacceptable and a concept that should be rejected by lawmakers in Sacramento.

Monday, March 2, 2009

PEER SENDS LOVE LETTER TO IMBA


For many years, some leaders of the mountain bike community
have had a dream of finding a way to rewrite federal law so that
mountain bikes are allowed in designated Wilderness areas or
other non-mechanized land classifications.

The following Feb. 17 PEER News Release
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1160
should serve as a potent reminder to mountain bike leaders that
many green groups lump their form of recreation in the same category of other hated land-use groups which include OHV, timber, mining, and cattle grazing.

All one has to do is simply replace the term “mountain bikes” with “OHVs” and
the PEER news release would look like so many others they and other green groups have
filed against dirt-bikers, ATVers, or 4WD owners.

The General continues to feel that mountain bikers and OHVers have a lot in common
and should join forces to advocate for continued motorized and mechanized responsible access to our Backcountry. Maybe PEER’s news release will fill the mountain bike community’s nostrils with the not-so-sweet aroma of green bias arising from the brew of the enviro's conflict industry.

# # #