11:57 am
Club Trailmaster
March 13, 2015
Offline
An open house is being held in sacramento by the group that holds the purse strings to OHV programs in the state. I plan on being there to shake some hands and make sure the work our club does can continue.
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss potential changes to the organizational structure within the OHV program. My concern is any change in management has the opportunity to put non-wheelers in charge of the checkbook. OHV funding has had many issues in the past so this is an opportunity to spot red flags early.
If anyone has any comments they want raised at this meeting either officially as a club stance or as an individual, please post in this form and I will raise the question at the open house.
More open house info as well as location details can be found at the link below.
8:51 pm
December 13, 2015
Offline I can't imagine the Club having a better Trailmaster Kris! 
[¯¯],[¯¯¯¯],
l---L--OllllllO¬
():) ():)-----():)
Its a Gee(p) thing
9:22 pm
Club Member
September 3, 2008
Offline Does this make any sense to you Kris?
https://www.facebook.com/cutte.....e_bubble
This gentlemen is raising concerns about the changes proposed.
I agree with Dave, You are doing a great job!
Um...what?
9:29 pm
Club Member
September 3, 2008
Offline 
I'm going to attempt to make the meeting also. I don't like the sound of this. We need to protect the grant money our recreation needs.
http://www.savecaliforniaohv.o......php/faq
^ if my link doesn't work, hit the FAQ tab and read why this streamlining is bad for OHV.
Um...what?
11:48 am
Club Trailmaster
March 13, 2015
Offline Gregulator said
Does this make any sense to you Kris?https://www.facebook.com/cutte.....e_bubble
This gentlemen is raising concerns about the changes proposed.
I agree with Dave, You are doing a great job!
That is an example of someone who seems to have a better idea of what will be happening at the meeting than I do. I have seen his name before and it makes sense as he is part of the blueribbon coalition. My assumptions seem to be correct however that this may change who has control of the OHV fund checkbook. A troubled agency doesn't fix itself by absorbing a smaller (might not actually be smaller by budget) agency that is functioning. This is simply bad policy and reminiscent of the 80s wall street hostile takeover days.
Some draft comment language (please provide feedback/edits/suggestions): The OHV program is far from perfect but it seems to me to be one of the most successful. As the people volunteering, sitting in the snow turning cars around on closed roads, clearing fallen trees, and handing out maps to the public, it is already difficult enough to secure funding for projects out of the OHV Fund. The proposed changes would negatively impact OHV program oversight, end user experience, trail maintenance programs and thus environmental impacts of OHV use. For these reasons we find the proposed changes unacceptable and troubling on a policy and agency management level.
This is when having some matching club apparel would help. The more we get into this type of stuff the more an official looking club shirt seems in order. Im thinking a uniform look with some NFS Volunteer and club patches. I will discuss with Lynda and at the club meeting.
6:53 am
Club Member
September 3, 2008
Offline From talking with a few people, I agree with your conclusion. They are using terms that make this sound like a great government move that is modernizing the department. In reality, the board that will oversee this funding has no pro OHV representatives allocating on our behalf. I think we would see a drastic change to the OHV program. Like you said, It's not perfect, but is better than most Government funded programs.
How's this letter Kris:
Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns about the California State Parks Transformation process and my desire to protect the current state of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of California State Parks.
These concerns are based on the State Parks Transformation Team’s recommendation to consolidate the OHMVR Program into non-OHV Park Operations. It is counter to the findings of the Parks Forward Commission and had little or no input form OHV experts and recreationist. I also believe the Transformation Team has a complete lack of understanding about the history and scope of the OHMVR Program. A staff filled with career DPR employees, anti-OHV advocates and consultants with no OHMVR Division experience led the Transformation Team down a path to a poor decision and potential disaster for the OHMVR Division and OHV recreationist in California.
Under this plan, and based on previous actions by Department of Parks and Recreation staff, I feel the potential to misuse and redirect OHV dedicated funds to the beleaguered DPR budget is high and could decimate the OHMVR Program. Also, the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program would lose critical oversight by highly trained OHMVR specialists. Environmental and Law Enforcement programs on Federal Lands in many of California’s most pristine landscapes may be imperiled, which could have a significant impact on water quality and wildlife habitat. The Education and Interpretation Program could be scaled back limiting OHV training, youth safety instruction and critical outreach efforts. The scenario above is realistic, disturbing and the exact opposite of the intent of the Transformation process.
The existing structure of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Program was founded in 1971 by a cooperative effort between OHV recreationist and conservationist to manage OHV use in California as a user funded separate operating division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
The OHMVR Program is a separate division for a number of reasons. First, OHV recreation is not confined to California State Parks. In fact the vast majority of OHV recreation is on Federal Lands. There are only nine State Park units (SVRAs) and they were added after the programs creation. Due to the cooperative nature of OHV management the original statute created a dedicated funding source to facilitate management on non-state properties. The statute directs taxes and fees collected from OHV use to areas where OHV use occurs and is not intended for any other purposes and is subject to California state laws.
The unique and innovative OHMVR Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program provides for managed off-highway vehicle recreation in California by providing financial assistance to cities, counties, districts, federal agencies, state agencies, educational institutions, federally recognized Native American Tribes, and nonprofit entities.
These grant funds are used for multiagency planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, administration, operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities associated with the use of OHVs, and programs involving OHV safety or education. The Grants Program requires oversight by specialized OHV grant analysts to assist applicants, provide a forum for public input and audit each grant during the its lifecycle to ensure proper use of grant funds to satisfy strict statute requirements. One of the huge benefits of the existing structure is the economic benefit to rural and improvised communities throughout California. With an estimated fifteen billion dollar annual economic impact, OHV recreation is one of the main and few economic drivers for these neglected communities.
The OHMVR Program has undergone many reviews and audits since its creation. This has fine-tuned the Program to become the largest and most successful program of its type and is recognized worldwide as the template for responsible motorized recreation.
In closing, I urge you to reconsider the Transformation Team’s recommendation and support the Parks Forward Commission’s decision. Please don’t sacrifice the self-funded shining star of the California Department of Parks and Recreation in the name of Transformation.
Um...what?
8:16 am
Club Member
February 26, 2014
Offline well said Greg.
1:22 pm
Club Member
January 19, 2011
Offline Gilbert & Betty said
well said Greg.
X2
Nicely put Greg.
Semper Fi
3:00 pm
December 13, 2015
Offline Gregulator said
From talking with a few people, I agree with your conclusion. They are using terms that make this sound like a great government move that is modernizing the department. In reality, the board that will oversee this funding has no pro OHV representatives allocating on our behalf. I think we would see a drastic change to the OHV program. Like you said, It's not perfect, but is better than most Government funded programs.How's this letter Kris:
Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns about the California State Parks Transformation process and my desire to protect the current state of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of California State Parks.
These concerns are based on the State Parks Transformation Team’s recommendation to consolidate the OHMVR Program into non-OHV Park Operations. It is counter to the findings of the Parks Forward Commission and had little or no input form OHV experts and recreationist. I also believe the Transformation Team has a complete lack of understanding about the history and scope of the OHMVR Program. A staff filled with career DPR employees, anti-OHV advocates and consultants with no OHMVR Division experience led the Transformation Team down a path to a poor decision and potential disaster for the OHMVR Division and OHV recreationist in California.
Under this plan, and based on previous actions by Department of Parks and Recreation staff, I feel the potential to misuse and redirect OHV dedicated funds to the beleaguered DPR budget is high and could decimate the OHMVR Program. Also, the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program would lose critical oversight by highly trained OHMVR specialists. Environmental and Law Enforcement programs on Federal Lands in many of California’s most pristine landscapes may be imperiled, which could have a significant impact on water quality and wildlife habitat. The Education and Interpretation Program could be scaled back limiting OHV training, youth safety instruction and critical outreach efforts. The scenario above is realistic, disturbing and the exact opposite of the intent of the Transformation process.
The existing structure of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Program was founded in 1971 by a cooperative effort between OHV recreationist and conservationist to manage OHV use in California as a user funded separate operating division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
The OHMVR Program is a separate division for a number of reasons. First, OHV recreation is not confined to California State Parks. In fact the vast majority of OHV recreation is on Federal Lands. There are only nine State Park units (SVRAs) and they were added after the programs creation. Due to the cooperative nature of OHV management the original statute created a dedicated funding source to facilitate management on non-state properties. The statute directs taxes and fees collected from OHV use to areas where OHV use occurs and is not intended for any other purposes and is subject to California state laws.
The unique and innovative OHMVR Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program provides for managed off-highway vehicle recreation in California by providing financial assistance to cities, counties, districts, federal agencies, state agencies, educational institutions, federally recognized Native American Tribes, and nonprofit entities.
These grant funds are used for multiagency planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, administration, operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities associated with the use of OHVs, and programs involving OHV safety or education. The Grants Program requires oversight by specialized OHV grant analysts to assist applicants, provide a forum for public input and audit each grant during the its lifecycle to ensure proper use of grant funds to satisfy strict statute requirements. One of the huge benefits of the existing structure is the economic benefit to rural and improvised communities throughout California. With an estimated fifteen billion dollar annual economic impact, OHV recreation is one of the main and few economic drivers for these neglected communities.
The OHMVR Program has undergone many reviews and audits since its creation. This has fine-tuned the Program to become the largest and most successful program of its type and is recognized worldwide as the template for responsible motorized recreation.
In closing, I urge you to reconsider the Transformation Team’s recommendation and support the Parks Forward Commission’s decision. Please don’t sacrifice the self-funded shining star of the California Department of Parks and Recreation in the name of Transformation.
wow! nice job
[¯¯],[¯¯¯¯],
l---L--OllllllO¬
():) ():)-----():)
Its a Gee(p) thing
6:42 am
Club Member
August 17, 2014
Offline kris_olof said
That is an example of someone who seems to have a better idea of what will be happening at the meeting than I do. I have seen his name before and it makes sense as he is part of the blueribbon coalition. My assumptions seem to be correct however that this may change who has control of the OHV fund checkbook. A troubled agency doesn't fix itself by absorbing a smaller (might not actually be smaller by budget) agency that is functioning. This is simply bad policy and reminiscent of the 80s wall street hostile takeover days.
Some draft comment language (please provide feedback/edits/suggestions): The OHV program is far from perfect but it seems to me to be one of the most successful. As the people volunteering, sitting in the snow turning cars around on closed roads, clearing fallen trees, and handing out maps to the public, it is already difficult enough to secure funding for projects out of the OHV Fund. The proposed changes would negatively impact OHV program oversight, end user experience, trail maintenance programs and thus environmental impacts of OHV use. For these reasons we find the proposed changes unacceptable and troubling on a policy and agency management level.
This is when having some matching club apparel would help. The more we get into this type of stuff the more an official looking club shirt seems in order. Im thinking a uniform look with some NFS Volunteer and club patches. I will discuss with Lynda and at the club meeting.
I will absolutely help in any way. Let me know if you want me to print out a sign sheet and if so I will use your verbiage (or whatever you suggest) and get signatures. Maybe from the members at the meeting, and if someone really wants to sign it I can drive to your house/meet you somewhere. Don't mind at all. I concur with the the opinions of everyone last nigh at the meeting; this stinks. 
Thanks for keeping a sharp eye on stuff like this for us. We will be at the meeting. I might hitch a ride with someone there but ride back with Guy. He comes that way from work.
Greg, we will also sign the general form you spoke of, however, I'm having trouble finding it....
7:13 am
Club Member
September 3, 2008
Offline http://www.savecaliforniaohv.o.....d-a-letter
^ Take action now!! This is the link to send a completed letter, just input your name.
Just to be clear, I didn't write the above verbiage. I simply copied and pasted.
Um...what?
5:01 pm
Club Member
August 17, 2014
Offline Gregulator said
http://www.savecaliforniaohv.o.....d-a-letter^ Take action now!! This is the link to send a completed letter, just input your name.
Just to be clear, I didn't write the above verbiage. I simply copied and pasted.
Thank you. We filled one out for each of us.
8:22 pm
Club Member
September 3, 2008
Offline Guy and Lynda said
Gregulator said
http://www.savecaliforniaohv.o.....d-a-letter^ Take action now!! This is the link to send a completed letter, just input your name.
Just to be clear, I didn't write the above verbiage. I simply copied and pasted.
Thank you. We filled one out for each of us.
Thank you!! Anyone else?
Um...what?
8:06 am
Club Member
February 26, 2014
Offline yes I filled one out and submitted it
8:46 am
Club Member
July 14, 2016
Offline Gregulator said
Thank you!! Anyone else?
Done!
6:44 pm
March 8, 2016
Offline Just submitted the form!
8:31 pm
Club President
April 2, 2003
Offline I sent a nice personal message as well.
10:26 pm
April 9, 2015
Offline I sent mine with a message too.
4:08 pm
Club Trailmaster
March 13, 2015
Offline Thanks to Guy, Lynda, and Jeff for helping the club make a showing. Auditorium was filled and supporters of the preliminary merger plans from the Transformation Team were either very few or not even there. Lynda was writing comments to be addressed by the State Parks Director as fast as the Recording Secretary could get them from her.
The meeting started with a rather straight forward pledge of allegiance and council thanking themselves and patting themselves on the back. A short description of the preliminary plans for the OHV division with regards to the remainder of the State Parks Department was given with many comments making it clear that this was the path forward, change is opportunity, and inefficiencies need to be addressed to succeed into the future.
My thinking is that the Parks Director mis-judged the support there would be as she started in her presentation by saying she was happy with the amount of support some people in the audience for these early plans but none of that support was visible throughout the rest of the evening. Other things noted in the presentation were a general feeling of urgency to change, feeling that district leaders should have both OHV and non-OHV areas to manage, and a general lack of understanding where the money from OHV goes.
Following the short presentation (verbal description of the broad plans), the council addressed questions from the audience. These written questions were turned in during the presentation and continued until the moderator issues a ten minute warning prior to a break. I didnt keep count of the number of questions but i would guess somewhere north of 50 and most were concerns about the OHV fund, potential expansion of loans to the rest of the department, and a desire to not change anything. In answering these questions there were a few responses made that seemed to contradict previous responses as well as statements made in the introductory presentation. It was stated that merging divisions would decrease staffing costs but it was also said that there really isnt any room in the building currently and that nobody would be laid-off.
After a short break there were some clarifying comments made and then the public comments, each limited to 3 minutes started. 30 people got up to present with only 1 person choosing no to speak and 1 person not being in the room when they were called. Comments ranged in specific topic but the majority were concerned with the future of the trust fund, a lack of trust with the rest of the state parks department, and a general negative response to the merger. Some were more tactful and well spoken, while a few were angry, mis-trusting, accusatory, or emotional. The majority of the comments seemed to come from local motorcycle related groups but there were also a few local representatives who sent staffers as well as a sitting county supervisor. In all 2 of the commenters seemed to be on board with a merger but neither was completely so and both showed concern with the intent of the council.
The council will be doing another meeting soon in SoCal somewhere and the OHV commission itself will be holding a meeting in early september. Though I cant make a meeting in socal, I will try and make the OHV commission meeting. I feel the club should attempt to make a presence at these quarterly OHV commission meetings in the future.
So where does this leave us and the future of the OHV fund? Well, unknown. Hopefully the amount of negative feedback received at this meeting was enough to scare them off for a while but it seems more likely they they will re-group with another tactic or hold the 2018 OHV fuel tax sunset over our heads until we agree. I dont like the idea of OHV funding having to go through a main voting body and only ever having 2 sure votes (a suggested compromise where in disbanding the OHV specific commission, OHV would get to appointments to the main commission). I will attempt to keep the club apprised of this ongoing issue.
5:53 pm
Club Member
February 26, 2014
Offline Well it sounds like parks people have made up there minds, and all of the public meetings are a formality. And that would be sad but not totally unexpected 
1 Guest(s)
