Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

Washington State wants citizen thoughts about recreation in Washington
The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office is hosting a series of online public meetings to get people’s thoughts about the future of outdoor recreation in Washington.

The online forum will gather the public’s input about the demand for outdoor recreation, what people want to see in their parks and on their trails, what prevents people from recreating outdoors and the quality of their experiences when they do.

To participate in the online public meetings, visit www.scorpwa.wordpress.com.

You can participate at any time of day. The meeting will start with a series of questions about commercialization of parks, and new questions will be added regularly.

http://www.portorchardindependent.com/news/177291231.html

Make you vioce heard. Otherwise don't complain when you dont have a place to ride! Please guys take the time to get the word out. So many people think we don't need OHV trails to ride on.

Put my .02 in, and will monitor for more questions.


1911fan

Yer gonna need another pass of some kind,,it's all about the byoorcatic money at stake. Create more jobs in the process,,another gov't agency to oversee yet another non-problem.
State wide rulings do not work, can't compare and regulate city vs country.
Same everywhere,,everyone gets to vote on a proposal, but the vast majority of populace is in cities, and many of the voters will never actually use the areas and resources that they vote on.
By all means,,we must make ourselves heard. We are the minority.
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ADV RIDERS NOW!

In before youknowwho.

BTW, in!

Orv brand horses!

Naw,,you brand cattle,,a true horseman would never brand his steed!
Keep yer branding red hot glowing iron shit away from MY horse!

Link must be visiting his dating thread,,I figgered he'd have been jumping all over this one.
Still, my post stands,, I lived in Warshington many years ago,, and it was the same then,,regulate, regulate, add costs to regulate, then regulate some more.
But that was 40+ and then again 30+ years ago, when we could ride on roads without gates.Back when,,"i wonder where that road goes," ,didn't have a thing stopping you from riding up to see for yourself.
I am blessed to have grown up my whole life in the PacNorthWet at a time when there was ignorance,,

Yessiree!! I bet you are!
Not much o' dat left......

Just read the comments on the current two questions, and a woman is complaining about how hard hikers have to struggle to get NOVA funds. WTF? NOVA has always been about motorized recreation. Stay out of my pocket!


1911fan

There were some folks within the horse community that would have supported an equestrian trail permit program, but that went in the crapper when the D-pass became law.

In! Thanks for posting this up Guns.

Just trying to BUMP this up to the top.

Let the state know what you think!!

The distribution formula was changed about ten years ago. The Legislature made the change based on a fundamentally flawed study conducted by Herbert Research in 2002.

The study compared the fuel use in offroad vehicles traveling offroad to the fuel used in vehicles traveling on nonhighway roads on the way to engage in nonmotorized recreation.

It did not consider the fuel used on nonhighway road by people traveling to engage in motorized offroad recreation.
This significant skewed the results.

The study results were further and and even more significantly flawed by not providing the respondents with the legal definition of nonhighway road, leaving many of them to assume that once the left the freeway or major highway they were on a nonhighway road.

At the time of the study a "nonhighway" road was defined by RCW46.09.020 as any road owned or managed by a public agency, or a private road for which the owner has granted a permanent easement for public use of the road, other than a highway generally capable of travle by a convential two-wheel drive passenger automobile during most of the year and in use by such vehicles and that is not built or maintained with appropriations from the motor vehicle fund.

As you can imagine, if the results of the study were base on that definition the outcome would have been completely different.

In 2003, the NMA filled a lawsuit in response to the distribution changes base on this study and in 2005 the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III ruled in favor of the state, finding that the fuel tax refund was still a legal refund regardless of who it was refunded to.

Exactly why there is some serious hostility towards the west side over here

I am confused.
Not one single comment on that webpage mentions crack whores, welfare babies or hood rats.
Maybe not everyone here has posted their comments yet?

comments posted. It's great to see the state looking for input, but will the listen to what is given?

Still time to post your pro-ORV comments.

How do you post puppy pictures to word press forums.

No Soup for You!