Wednesday, September 15 – Funding
The DNR Forum on recreation is now closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
“In 2009, the Sustainable Recreation Work Group developed the following recommendations to the Washington State Legislature for sustainable funding and improved access for recreation on DNR-managed lands. Which of these recommendations do you favor? Do you have any other suggestions?”
- User Fees / Annual Pass
- Recreational Immunity for DNR
- Concessionaires
- Increase the Gas Tax Refund to the Nonhighway and Off-Road
- Vehicle Activities Program (NOVA)
- Lottery
- Reallocate Sales Tax Revenue from Outdoor Sporting Goods
- New Statutory Trust Lands
DNR Forum 
Frank 9:41 pm on September 18, 2010 Permalink |
I think recreational immunity makes sense if this can be established. One of the stupidest stories I’ve heard is how an off-roader sued the state for injuries suffered from trying to illegally access an off-limits road by going through a “tank trap” and the state ended up paying big bucks and stopped digging these barriers. Where’s the common sense? If NOVA funds are restored, substanttial amounts should be earmarked for fixing damage done by illegal offroading, including restoring of signs and effective barriers.
Bryan Peterson - Wheelers of Washington Association 8:42 pm on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
Please restore the NOVA funds…
Bryan Peterson 8:25 pm on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
I support Recreational Immunity for DNR — Rocks & logs are fun, but imagine what could be possible with man made materials! Professional rock crawling uses shotcrete to build entire competition sites…maybe we could incorporate some of what they do into our orv areas. People say that Tahuya is too easy, but some great things have been done with the placement of natural rock…let’s expand on that idea & include some extreme obstacles made out of shotcrete. Rocks & concrete do not erode…let’s incorporate these materials into our trails & entice users to actually stay on the trail…instead of wandering off to find a more challenging experience.
Suzi Parr 1:22 pm on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
Although NOVA is a grant and I recently posted that we don’t want to build the infrastructure from a grant, the grant monies should be put back where they belong and where they were designated to be used, which was not for state parks that don’t allow the vehicle activities that NOVA was designed to fund. I am all for state parks, but let’s not continue robbing Peter to pay Paul. It erodes the confidence of voters who become less trusting that the gov’t will do what it says it will with funding. In that vein, I am not for increasing that tax either.
I’ll support a user pass/annual pass as long as (1) the money goes to DNR directly and (2) volunteers can receive a pass once they’ve volunteered X hours per year-such as the forest service pass.
Concessionaires seem to drive up cost and the relationships with them can be confusing. If they only serve the direct camp and not the trails or other areas, or enforicements of violations, I don’t see it as much of an assistance.
I am not sure of the meaning of recreational immunity-but if that means that the state can’t cut funding, I have to say I am torn about that. Maybe some parameters around how deep cuts could be, but I don’t think any area of the budget should be completely exempt from potential budget cuts. That might not be a popular statement, but I think it is unreasonable to expect to set a budget level and nothing can ever impact it. I think the cost of administering the distribution of sales taxes from sporting goods would likely outweight the benefits, as well. I am not sure that there would be a good return on investment for more state trust lands-we’d have to have the money to purchase them in the first place. Maybe that funding comes from another source, but if its from DNR, it seems we’d have to spend money we don’t have.
Suzi Parr, Vice President BackCountry Horsemen of Washing, Mount St. Helens Chapter
K.S.E. 12:49 pm on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
Each listed resource has its pro’s and con’s.
• I was opposed to the National Forest and BLM user fee because that money did not go back to the forest where it was generated. If you are going to institute fees to enter state lands, those monies must be earmarked for that area. I have purchased a senior citizens pass for National Parks, etc. I like that.
• Your use of volunteers to be present at state campgrounds and areas is very effective. I would hope you didn’t replace them with concessionaires. Having once worked for a concessionaire, I can tell you that your management with that entity might end more costly. As I’ve watched that program in the National Forests, less individuals or small businesses are awarded those contracts. It has become big business and with that, less accountability.
• I donate when I renew my tabs for my car – so I think that is good.
• Lottery money sounds good.
• Sales tax from Sporting Goods would relate – don’t know whether you’d get that through or not and what it actually generates.
State lands like education need to have consistent funding and not be threatened during every budget process.
Eric Burr 11:08 am on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
Tax gas and outdoor toys that use gas, or are related to encouraging its use.
William Crawley 10:36 am on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
None of the above. Until the NOVA funds are returned to fund motorized access as originally intended, it is criminal to ask for more money. What the state has done with the NOVA funds is appalling. How can anybody have any confidence in the government when they steal our money and illegally use it for something something completely different? It would be stupid for the public to then support giving more money to replace those funds when the state has proven they will just use it for whatever they like.
Susan S 9:51 am on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
Restore NOVA funds to original intent. The Legislature needs to give State Parks its own stable funding stream. Establish user fees and/or an annual recreation pass for all state lands (DNR and State Parks); legislative authorization should include recreational immunity for the state. Reward volunteers with a free annual pass in exchange for two days of work. Contract with concessionaires to operate the most popular recreation sites, including maintenance, fee collection and user education. Place DNR lands with high recreation values in a new statutory trust classification.
Joe 8:42 am on September 17, 2010 Permalink |
NOVA funding needs to be restored. I don’t trust the state any more. It was foolish to reallocate the NOVA funds to state parks that contracted snow groomers to groom a lack of snow. It shut Jeeps out of traditional Jeep areas and allocated the space to snowmobiles that could not operate because there was no snow there.
I buy 4 registrations for Snowmobiles, 3 registrations for motorcycles, 2 registrations for trailers, registration for a motor home, registration for a sand rail, 3 registrations for Jeeps, I have a NW Forest Pass, Four Oregon Off road registrations and have to pay every time I cross the Tacoma Narrows Bridge eastbound. I understand the need to register vehicles and pay for the bridge. I don’t want to pay every time I park.
I believe Oregon has a good system of off road funding with their two year registrations for $10.50 and a $5 parking fee at paved sites.
I would be willing to pay $5 a day for each of: a) pavement, b) running water, c) an RV dump, and d) trash collection.
I believe a retail tax on camping supplies (including fuel) is the most manageable and reliable funding stream.
Michele c. 8:45 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
User fees; recreational immunity.
Gail 7:41 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
I have no problem paying my fair share. I just believe that all users should be paying theirs also. One permit for each use with a super permit that covers them all. Or discounts for multiple endorsements of 1 permit. There has to be a way where we don’t need to buy 5 different permits to access public land.
James Miron 6:08 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
I would gladly pay for a $100/yr pass if it covered all the areas I wished to recreate in. It’s the unexpected, multiple, niggling fees every which way I turn that annoys the hell out of me.
Grant Collins 5:35 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
Refund the NOVA funds that were taken. This program has been in place for many years and worked fine.
Make sure that the NOVA funds are used for ORV parks.
Annual passes are also a good idea.
Herb Gerhardt 4:20 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
The legislature MUST restore the ORV License funding back to ORV users and not to State Parks! I feel very strongly that all moneys collected for ORV fees MUST be used for ORV recreation opportunities.
The NOVA and grant moneys are great if they were utilized properly but they should be used for improvements and not employees salaries. That is flawed thinking and causes a very unstable work force like we are presently experienceing with our E&E program.
User Fees are OK but there is not assurance that the legislature would not steal them in the future and divert them to other functions. The ORV registration is in effect such a user fund that has been diverted elsewhere. Also if such user fees are instituted, there needs to be a Golden Age exemtion similar to the Federal Golden Age passport. Being an active Forest Watch Patrol individual, I have had lots of campers ask me why we do not charge for camping and that they would be more than happy to pay for camping. I personally don’t mind such camping fees but there should be some exeptions to not exclude those who can’t pay from camping. If they can afford ORV’s, they can afford to pay for camping, but there are many families who can not afford to pay and just want to go out and teach their kids the outdoor experience…. If user fees cannot be guaranteed to be used for recreational opportunities, then user fees is not an option.
Developing modern campgrounds with power and sewers are a good option. For these campgrounds having them operated by a Concessionair is a great option. That way those who need and want all these niceties, would be more than willing to pay for them. I think this is a very needed option that DNR needs to explore. It would eleviate crowding at the Trail Heads and primitive campgrounds.
Yes, DNR needs to be given total Recreational Immunity form the users. Users must realize that recreating in the outdoors can be a very dangerous situation and if they are not willing to accept those dangers, they must not use public lands. The legislature needs to enact an exemtion to prevent such law suits which only cause everyone else’s rights to be restricted.
Bev Ryan 3:14 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
Prior to 1990, where did DNR non-grant funding come from? Why was it taken away?
Nova funds should be restored to DNR as they were originally designated. State Parks/campgrounds are already over crowded we need more campgrounds and trailheads in DNR recreation areas.
I am not “educated” on the ORV (Off-road Vehicle and Non-highway Vehicle) or NOVA (Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle) fuel taxes. Besides the fact that they sound the same to me? Mark Mauren explains in his Task 1: Overview of DNR’s Off-road and Nonhighway Road Program, on page 2, the 4th paragragh that this includes passenger vehicles? Could someone explain?
User Fees / Annual Pass – perhaps camping fees
Recreational Immunity for DNR – agree
Concessionaires – if needed for specific campgrounds
Increase the Gas Tax Refund to the Nonhighway and Off-Road – NO, never
Vehicle Activities Program (NOVA) – should be restored to DNR
Lottery – I don’t disagree
Reallocate Sales Tax Revenue from Outdoor Sporting Goods – absolutely not
New Statutory Trust Lands – Don’t know how this applies.
CJ FLOATHE 12:26 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
I have been paying ORV tabs for over thirty years and i have seen the price triple in this time, even though we lose more land to use yearly. We love being able to use DNR land but funds are not being appropriated correctly. There are many hikers, horseriders, and mountain bikers who do not pay a fee to use these areas, depending on the area. Why not charge them a fee? I also ride in Oregon where the fee is only 10.50 for two years. Why not split it among us so were all paying the same amount?
Jim Anderson 12:21 pm on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
I view the New Land Trust option as being the best most stable in the long run. Yes it’s harder to make the change and would take legislative action but not impossible. After that monies from lottery sources and restoring NOVA monies as the easiest. I would avoid consessionaries like the plauge. User fees with passes for volunteers would help but you need enforcement to make it work and there’s another exspense. Raising taxes in todays economy makes no sense.
Darcy Mitchem 8:28 am on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
Restore NOVA and improve recreational immunity are no brainers. Recreational immunity should apply to manmade latent conditions related to roads and trails. A dedicated excise tax on outdoor equipment has worked very well for the hunting and fishing communities (Pitman/Robertson funds) on a federal level. Doing something similar on a state level may be more difficult, but Washington has strong outdoor industries and our state could be a good place to try it, especially on high dollar items like mtn. bikes or saddles. Any user fee must include all state land and be easy to buy on-site, low overhead and enforcement, and not hurt tourism (out of staters play free?). This might be too difficult to achieve for the value. As for NOVA, re-evaluate how much off-highway gas is actually consumed, and re-portion NOVA accordingly. Making agencies spend countless hours on grant applications sucks money into paperwork instead of on-the-ground projects. Maybe just porportion more it out, and let agencies prioritize. ORV areas and campgrounds should charge for sure, but maybe not entry/trailhead. Counties should help fund LEO and in some cases, key access roads. Maybe drop DNR LEO and just add deputies to counties with so many acres DNR.
Cherie Bevers 7:46 am on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
There is insufficient information here. How much was received this year in annual passes etc. what was the short fall? What will be closed or what will the consequences be of not raising more money?
There should be plenty of people who want to become hikers and backpackers with the terrible economy.. Most fitness costs a lot more.. Even a gym membership costs more. Americans desperately need exercise and they could benefit from walks , hikes and camping.
My recommendation is to keep funding the way it is, but get more people participating. Advertise.
Jeff Chapman 9:45 am on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
DNR can not assess user access fees until there is some legislative authorization including amending the state immunity statute.
Revenue for recreation now comes from some internal support from resource proceeds (like with road improvements), general fund allocations, off-road vehicle tab fees, and some grant monies such as gas tax allocations from RTP (federal) and NOVA (state) or from WWRP (with limited application). Gas tax allocations are always at risk. NOVA funds are currently being allocated to help another state recreational agency stay afloat during these hard times (State Parks)
DNR can’t control general fund allocations by the legislature, and it is very likely these will again be at risk of elimination next year. After this past year’s legislative experience, we could easily be seeing a number of general fund sites potentially being shuttered, like Mt Si.
Tootie 7:34 am on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
Here are my recommendations
Keep NOVA
New Statutory Trust Lands
Reallocate Sales Tax Revenue from Outdoor Sporting Goods
Recreational Immunity For DNR
I am against new user fees and really tired of being nickle and dimed to death, while our government blows our very hard earned tax dollars. Instead of cutting programs, born of better times, they feel the answer to our fiscal dilema is to increase taxes and initiate new user fees. I’m done!
Fran 7:06 am on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
Restore NOVA funding.
Member of backcountry horsemen of Wa.
Lori Lennox 6:59 am on September 16, 2010 Permalink |
I favor the following:
* User Fees / Annual Pass – again, if: it is sensibly priced; it pays for itself without a huge overhead; all monies go back to the DNR; and if there is a Volunteer Pass that can be earned by donating a reasonable # of hours. Would be nice if it is set up like the F&W system or better yet, tied in with that if possible. Get more camp hosts, (should be easy to get viable, good folks to park free on state lands what with the recession. Retired people who are in dire financial straits now, let them monitor tags, whatever.
* Recreational Immunity for DNR – and for private lands also. This is the #2 priority IMO.
* Increase the Gas Tax Refund to the Nonhighway and Off-Road – should have been done a long time ago.
* Vehicle Activities Program (NOVA) – #1 priority! And protect it somehow from being taken again.
* New Statutory Trust Lands
*Lottery – would like to see that investigated also.
Ted Coombs 10:15 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
First off, “NOVA” funds need to be restored to their original designated use and left there, as was the original intent when they were established. “NOVA” Funds source also needs to be increased to closer match the actual ORV generated funds rather than a small percentage of that known income.
I would and could support a “User Fee”, but only when there was a visible value at the Sites charging the Fees, such as better parking/camping areas, more trails, better enforcement of the rules and regulations at those sites, but I think that there should be some type of “Credit” towards those fees for the people that Volunteer their time to clean, maintain, restore, build, or provide other assistance to DNR at their sites.
I also feel that the counties should shoulder some of the Law Enforcement burden for the areas within their counties, as those sites generate income for the counties. Just ask Snohomish County and the small towns there in how much revenue they lost with the closer of ORV activities in the Reiter Foothills last Nov.
Kevin V 8:57 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
First, restore the NOVA funds back to where they were originally earmarked for…
I would support a REASONABLE user fee, but there needs to be a viable way to collect/enforce this (DNR is already severely lacking in the enforcement department)…many current employees are asked/forced to wear multiple ‘hats’. And, there also needs to be a guarantee, or a system in place that would guarantee those fees collected go right back to improvements where the fee was collected from….
I also support giving DNR recreational immunity, as this would open the potential for more areas for the motorized recreationalists to enjoy the land!!!!
Jacob V 7:59 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
We need NOVA funding restored. A steady input of monies is needed to keep up with the amount of recreation we have nowdays. Grants are not going to be able to support are recreation system alone.
I also agree that the Gas Tax cap needs increased.
A lottery is another way DNR could raise money, but we would not want to rely on it.
Karen Johnson 7:36 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I would not object to paying an annual pass for access to DNR lands similar to the passes I already pay for WDFW and NW Forest Pass. If the fee would be put in place I would expect improvement in restroom and campsite facilities. The NOVA fund should be restored for its original intent as well. While the concessionaire method is very helpful and provides some favorable services I question if it is worthwhile monitarily for the state. It is certainly a loser for the user. Example: The NW Forest Pass fee used to be $30/year for access to USFS trailheads/campgrounds in the NW. The same campgrounds under a concessionaire now charge $14-16/day for camping in a single campsite. With the current economic situation it’s no wonder why many of those campgrounds are now empty.
Ryan Ojerio 7:18 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I support a reasonable user fee with the caveat that volunteers would be rewarded for their efforts with a free daily or annual pass. I also support all of the other recommendations that the working group came up with. I would very much like to see NOVA funds restored to their original intent.
Jody B 6:34 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I am willing to pay a user fee or annual pass as long as the money stays where it is supposed to and we dont get carried away with the fee. We also pay road taxes on the gas we burn in our ORV’s. Why dont we get some of that money back in our trails systems?
Lynn 6:27 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I am against any tax. We lost a major trail systems in our area that we had already PAID TAX DOLLARS to preserve! Thousands of trail users lost 650 acres of trails and lost access to thousands of miles of trails beyond. Yes, that is right. This tax came from every property owner, every year, for the conservation of land. As the advertising said “To preserve historic trails…For Future Generations to enjoy, …etc, etc” So why have we lost these public trails on land that our tax dollars paid for??? Because a billionaire bought the land for his own private usage. Yes the land was severly DISCOUNTED because us poorer tax payers paid to put this CONSERVATION EASEMENT on the land. Do we REALLY know where the tax dollars go? As we have seen in our backyard, we are told one thing when the tax is taken, but what we get is something totally different and VERY ugly! No this was not DNR land, but is under King County Protected Properties, also put under High Value Conservation Status, and Mountains to Sound Greenway! In a bad economy do you really think it is a good idea to up the tax to the working class to benefit the rich?
Matt Mead 6:13 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
User Fees/Annual Pass: I support this. DNR needs a reasonably priced ($20-$30) pass. The requirement could be to have one per vehicle to operate/park on all DNR lands. (Exclude non-street legal OHVs as the tow/hauling vehicle would have to have one. Also exclude snowmobile. [See comments below.]) I know this is a legislative issue; don’t know why DNR hasn’t been actively pursuing this in the past.
Recreational Immunity: A no-brainer.
Concessionaires: Not if it works like the USFS where a Forest Pass works some places, but not in concessionaire-run areas. It creates another obstacle, (fee), for the recreationist. If the concessionaire draws payment from DNR funds through a record keeping process and it is cheaper, OK.
Increase the gas tax refund: Duh! Snowmobilers have been working on this for years with no help from other OHV users OR the DNR. A JLARC study has deemed it is unconstitutional for the State to spend fuel tax revenue received for the sale of fuel for non-highway vehicles. Agreements in place keep individuals from claiming this refund personally, but the money is supposed to go to run user programs (NOVA, snowmobile, boating). As it is, users are only receiving partial refunds.
NOVA Account: WOHVA lawsuit = Good! This was an illegal act, (see reference above), and needs fixed. These funds only belong to NOVA! (Taking it a step farther, it shouldn’t be used for non-motorized users unless they are paying an equitable amount into the system.) Recreationists are going to be leery of, or AGAINST, any new ‘fees’ until NOVA is reimbursed. Why pay more money with the threat that it could be STOLEN.
Lottery & Sales tax from sporting goods: No.
Additional comments: I’m incensed with the extortion by DNR regarding sno-parks last season. I sympathize with DNR’s funding situation; extorting from snowmobilers is WRONG. Many no longer trust the DNR; it will take years to reestablish. Legitimate costs the DNR incurs due to snowmobiling have to be funneled through the State Parks Snowmobile Program. I support the type of funding for the DNR.
Regarding exempting snowmobilers from a ‘user pass’; snowmobilers need to help fund the DNR, but must be through the Snowmobile Program and not another tacked on fee. Snowmobilers fund their program via registration fees, sno-park permits and gas taxes. Having a sno-park permit displayed is the ‘pass’.
Views are mine do not represent any organizations.
Alan Wesley 5:07 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I support the idea of a reasonable daily use fee (like $5.00) or an annual user pass (like $30.00) help with funding as long as the funds stay at the site where they occurred.
So if a DNR hiking area brings in 5,000 vehicles a month at $5 each that $25K should be only used to fund/maintain that site.
I also feel that the State Immunity law needs to be changed. Unfortunately that is a much more difficult task.
Tod Petersen 3:59 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
The DNR should oppose any mis-appropriation of NOVA funds next legislative session instead of what they did in 2009.
Joan Fleming 3:21 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
Restore NOVA funding. Add DNR trail heads to the current state NW Pass system. When it comes to recreating, the DNR trails close to home will be used the most. That would encourage more people to invest in this pass as funding will be directed at the DNR sites that we frequently use.
Brad R 3:17 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I favor the lottery, and sales tax for outdoor sporting goods. I am merely a layman outdoor enthusist, , and do not know all the ins and outs of NOVA or someof the other things mentioned. I do know that I already have enough passes, and I am not willing to pay more fees or buy another pass to enjoy the outdoors, I would just use other lands, or park somewhere else and use the land for free if that were the case.
Jack Gillette, Jr. DVM 2:05 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I appose fees for the use of DNR lands. There are many of us who volunteer our time and equipment to improve campgrounds and trails. The state stole the NOVA funds that would have funded many of the things that they now want to charge us for. So we now have to pay it twice. And they wonder why the TEA PARTY is gaining power.
IF it is decided that concessionaires are given control of campgrounds and trail heads they must not have complete authority. There needs to be some avenue of recourse for complaint resolution.
Any new trust or other program will only be raided by the Legislature as they did NOVA Funds.
Jakob P 1:23 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
The key issue with all of these funding options is that it assumes the public budget process is stable. But we know it is not. They only way to ensure our parks will be self-sustainable is to move management and fee collection from the state into a county, city, non-profit, or for-profit organization which would lease the land for DNR. This would not only assure the users would see their fees go into the park they’re using, but it would also change the views of recreation on DNR land because it would be contributing to the trust just like forestry.
Another issue is that ORV users are paying user fees already with tabs. Unfortunately ORV tabs are only for non-street legal vehicles, unlike Oregon. This makes it hard to track what motorized users are on the landscape (its much more than ATVs and Dirt Bikes), and impossible to track non-motorized users. Worse, a majority of ORV tab monies is not even going to ORV based recreation!
Which leads to the issue about user fees. In theory they are a great idea. In practice, it will fail. For a few reasons:
1) Chicken before the egg. Would I be willing to pay $25/day or $200/yr to recreate at walker if it had 100 miles of trail of differing difficulty? Definitely. However, I’d find it hard to even want to spend $5/day, or $50/yr with the current trail mileage. Several studies on various local forums have shown similar results.
2) Public funding means public scrutiny. Say I am paying $25/day for Walker Valley. Can I be assured that 100% of those funds are going to pay for the operation, maintenance and improvement of that park? No. We were promised NOVA was ours and we can see that some lobbying can easily change that.
3) Difficulty of fee collection. State parks ran into large problems for a $5 parking fee. If we’re to have fee collection, it’d need to be easy for anyone to pay on-site, and easy to enforce.
A good comparison is a ski-area. This method is widely used for ORVs in the southeast. Private companies would have insurance with DNR covered, making the current law irrelevant, and would allow DH/Freestyle/4×4 rock crawling to occur with no liability to the state. Private companies could be for-profit or non-profit depending on how the user group wants to fund-raise for the area.
Janice Van Cleve 12:39 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
NOVA funds should be returned to their intended purposes including education and enforcement. Annual passes will only work if they are 1) recognized and rewarded – the honor system or 2) enforced through inspection and ticketing. Our outdoor recreation opportunities are a major attraction for people and business and should be fully funded.
Brian Allen 12:38 pm on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
How about using aquaculture lease revenue?
GARY ALLARD 11:24 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
DON’T DO WHAT THE USFS DOES, SENDS AN EMPLOYEE AROUND TO COLLECT CAMP GROUND FEES, WAGES, BENIFETS AND VEHICLE EXPENCES EXCEED THE FEES COLLECTED IN MOST RANGER DISTRICTS.
AT $20.00 PER DAY PER PERSON TO USE DNR LANDS A FAMILY WOULD BE BETTER OFF TO GO OUT OF STATE TO RECREATE, AND PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER EXPERIENCE.
Tim M 11:13 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I have three ideas for funding;
1) Restore the ORV tab tax to the NOVA fund, these where never meant to fund state parks, using these funds for state parks is like using gas tax to fund schools instead of roads.
2) Add sales taxes from outdoor recreation products, such as “mountain bikes” and equestrian items, saddles, horse shoes etc. to the NOVA funds.
3) Bring DNR under state parks control. If our “use taxes” i.e. orv tags and gas tax refund dollars are going to state parks, move DNR under state parks control. Open camp sites and more trails, charge for overnight camping.
#3 covers alot of problems that DNR is having, enforcement, funding, and education all will fall under state parks, making grants and taxes more available. The timber sales to support schools would be/ could be managed the same way, trails built by the same people, volunteer work could still be performed, maybe even more trails added to the system to avoid over crowding. Maybe even Straddle Line could be kept open under state management instead of county. Bicyclists could help fund the trail system with there $5 donation at time of vehicle registration, even I would not “opt out” as I do now since SP gets my ORV taxes right now.
GARY ALLARD 10:15 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I WOULD SUPPORT AN ANNUAL PASS ($20.00) TO USE THE WALKER VALLEY ORV PARK TYPE SITUATION. NOVA NEEDS TO BE REINSTATED. IT WAS A CRIME TO SWEEP THIS ACCOUNT. I DON’T THINK THE DNR COULD BE TRUSTED TO SPEND A LARGE POOL OF MONEY (USER FEES) ON THE GROUND. IT WOULD BE TOO TEMPTING TO DEVERT THE FUNDS TO WAGES ETC.
GARY ALLARD 10:05 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I WOULD SUPPORT RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY FOR DNR, CONCESSIONAIRS, INCREASE GAS TAX REFUND FOR NON HYWAY OFF ROAD VEHICLE PROGRQMS, NOVA,. WE LIVE IN A HIGHLY TAXED STATE ALL READY, I WOULD SUPPORT FEES FOR CAMP GROUND USE WHERE DNR ACTUALLY PROVIDES A SERVICE. (LIKE THE USFS DOES. BEFORE I WOULD BE WILLING TO BUY AN ACCESS PASS FOR USING DNR LANDS THE AGENCY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT THIS MONEY WOULD BE SPENT ON THE GROUND, NOT TOJUST PAY WAGES ON A BLOATED AGENCY AS HAPPENS AT THIS TIME.
Jim Putman 9:36 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
First off RESTORE THE NOVA FUNDING …. Second rasie the cap on the gas tax to where it should be(increases the NOVA fund) Third the DNR needs to install some sort of user fee pass that supports the trails and recreation.
Rick W 8:46 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
Everything seems to be in place. Why does the DNR not charge up to $20 per user per day now?…….I’m not a big fan of creating new avenues to collect money as in the future it could be compounded onto other available fees which could be currently in place.
RCW 4.24.210
Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for injuries to recreation users — Limitation.
(1) …………………………… any public or private landowners or others in lawful possession and control of any lands ………………………… who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to,…………… off-road vehicles, ……………………….without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users.
…………………………………. Nothing in RCW 4.24.200 and this section limits or expands in any way the doctrine of attractive nuisance. Usage by members of the public, volunteer groups, or other users is permissive and does not support any claim of adverse possession.
(5) For purposes of this section, the following are not fees……………………………….
(b) A daily charge not to exceed twenty dollars per person, per day, for access to a publicly owned ORV sports park, ………………………accessed by a highway, street, or nonhighway road for the purposes of off-road vehicle use.
Jeff Chapman 9:48 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
It is true that users of a few specifically defined public ORV sports parks can be charge a fee. However, DNR can not charge any fees for access to their their many recreational sites (including motorized use areas) or lands without amending the immunity statute. WDFW and WSP are covered.
(5) For purposes of this section, the following are not fees:
(a) A license or permit issued for statewide use under authority of chapter 79A.05 RCW or Title 77 RCW;
79A is WSP and 77 is WDFW
Ed G 10:36 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
For us motorized users (I ride dirt bikes), we are already being taxed through our gas taxes and registration fees. The NOVA funds designated only a small portion of those taxes back to off-road recreation and now those have been ‘stolen’ and redirected to State Parks. So the Legislature needs to either return that money to the taxpayers or apply it to the benefit of the taxpayers. So, if we allow the state to come up with some other fee scheme, are they going to return our gas & registration fees? What do you think? Let’s not let more taxation be the solution.
Jacqeline Angermeir 8:22 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
Restore NOVA funding..
Jeff Chapman 7:44 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I was on the SRWG committee as the equestrian representative. This part of the recreational immunity topic has to to with extending to DNR the right to charge user fees and still be protected by the current state recreational immunity statute. Currently a land owner does not have immunity from recreational incident claims if they charge a fee. The exception is that WDFW abd State Parks can charge fees as well as landowners charging fees for firewood cutting.
I support DNR being able to charge fees and still be protected by the immunity statute from incidental accidents/claims relating to public recreation. I would also say that a recommendation of SRWG is that this allowance should be extended to private landowners as well for permitting use of their lands for non-commercial events (such as prize rides), allowing them to recoup a small use charge.
Jay Brand 7:37 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
As to the user fee, I would like to see DNR, Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service vehicle pass rolled into one sticker. (Most likely hard to do with the U.S. Forest Service). The State Fish and Game vehicle pass comes with your hunting or fishing license, or it costs $10. Raise it to $15, if purchased alone, or $5 extra when you buy your license. The Wash. State Parks tried a $5 dollar vehicle pass a few years back and it was a bust, did not work. It would be nice if one pass would cover all three needed passes, in this day and age of computers, you would hope it would be possible. As to the U.S. Forest Service, they could charge a extra $10 bucks you you buy your pass, and they would pass that on. I do like the fact on the Fish and Game vehicle pass you can put two vehicle license plate numbers on the pass.
Jeff Chapman 7:31 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
Please do not divert NOVA to another use by State Government. While the last diversion to State Parks did serve a recreational purpose (we do appreciate that it didn’t get absorbed by the general fund or capital/M&O projects), State Parks has since been given new money in the way of the motor vehicle registration $5 donation (opt-out). In addition, there is talk at the federal level at fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and a portion of this goes to the state for parks (county, city, and state parks). Should this happen, it could provide an offsetting funding stream to State Parks.
Angela Merges 7:12 am on September 15, 2010 Permalink |
I think reasonable user fees/passes are a good way of funding, but drastic increases could easily sway people away. I believe NOVA should be restored, and that the lottery is a great idea as is sales tax from outdoor sporting goods as these are generally the people using the outdoor areas.