|
Post by Angela on Dec 16, 2011 7:32:48 GMT -5
I want to make sure no one misses that last paragraph - I know we have riders from our area that ride those trails - we need to get all the facts! Each of the three parks with new mountain bike trail fees proposed will be holding a public meeting after the first of the year to discuss our plans further and seek input from recreation users. Please contact one of the three state parks where you ride most so you can be notified and attend.Read more: sorbacsra.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2917#ixzz1ghSjOxtg
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Dec 16, 2011 10:40:07 GMT -5
Two comments.
1. So this may not impact Mistletoe at all.
2. I wish the USFS would make FATS a trail use fee area while leaving all the other USFS trails free to ride. We'd have all the trail $$$ we could possibly ever dream of having, the other trails (free) may get more traffic (they could use the wheels). But the main reason is the USFS couldn't say "we'd don't have any money to connect Modoc to Turkey Creek with 9 miles of new trail." And we'd have a linear 35 mile trail system....can you say Mecca?
|
|
|
Post by dgaddis1 on Dec 16, 2011 10:48:30 GMT -5
Angela - if this becomes a reality, one way to keep from pissing off the clubs who have spent so much time and effort (and money) building and maintaining the trails would be to offer a free annual pass to anyone who volunteers a certain number of hours every year.
And (obviously) the fee should apply to anyone using the trail, not just riders.
seenvic - I like your plan, although "we" wouldn't have the money would we? The USFS would.
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Dec 16, 2011 12:16:38 GMT -5
Angela - if this becomes a reality, one way to keep from pissing off the clubs who have spent so much time and effort (and money) building and maintaining the trails would be to offer a free annual pass to anyone who volunteers a certain number of hours every year. And (obviously) the fee should apply to anyone using the trail, not just riders. seenvic - I like your plan, although "we" wouldn't have the money would we? The USFS would. "we" in this case was the trails or the trail family in this area. the law reads that 80% of the money collected has to be spent locally. My thinking is that is the USFS is collecting $$$ to be spent locally, then over a few years, they could fund the design and construction of the Modoc/Turkey/Wine connection which was the original plan for these trails way back in 1965. I didn't mean "we" got the money as in SORBA CSRA got the money.
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Dec 16, 2011 13:49:06 GMT -5
And (obviously) the fee should apply to anyone using the trail, not just riders. I was looking around at the trails in those areas and for at least one of them it looks like a mountain biking only trail - there is a sign posted with a line through a hiker. I have never ridden any of those trails so just don't know. We need to get all the facts together (HQ is working on that as well)!
|
|
|
Post by brianW on Dec 16, 2011 16:29:41 GMT -5
two concerns: 1. Will this fee start out at these three parks and over time be charged at all parks.
2. (what seenvic brought up) Not against a user fee at FATS as long as there is a seasonal pass BUT I did see this in the White Mountains NF in NH. Targeted areas where there were heavy hike use. Monies collected didn't go to trail maintenence but parking lots, signs in lots, etc. That is my concern there.
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Dec 21, 2011 16:31:01 GMT -5
A letter went out to SORBA-CSRA members today but the following message was posted on SORBA.ORG by the Director of Communications for IMBA-SORBA: Public Meetings to Discuss Bike Trail Fees in GA Parks by robina » Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:36 pm Public Meetings Set to Discuss New Bike Trail Fees in State Parks ATLANTA, December 20, 2011 -- The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has scheduled two public meetings to discuss proposed mountain bike trail fees at three state parks. DNR officials are considering charging a $2 fee (per person) at Fort Yargo, Hard Labor Creek and Unicoi state parks to help offset operational and maintenance costs. The meetings are scheduled for: • January 9, 7 p.m. at Ft. Yargo State Park in Winder. Camp Will-A-Way’s gymnasium. • January 11, 7 p.m. at Unicoi State Park in Helen. Logo Meeting Room at the lodge. During the past few years, Georgia’s State Parks have been challenged with finding ways to rely less on state funding while keeping parks open for public use. To meet this challenge, officials are looking at user fees and annual passes to cover activities such as horseback riding, disc golf, miniature golf and mountain biking. Revenue from equestrian and mountain bike trails could be especially useful since high-impact trails require more maintenance. Fort Mountain State Park near Chatsworth already charges a $3 bike trail fee, which is not expected to change. The new proposal includes a $2 bike trail fee for Fort Yargo, Hard Labor Creek and Unicoi state parks, as well as a $25 annual pass good for all state park bike trails. To learn more about biking in Georgia’s state parks, visit www.gastateparks.org/outdoors#biking. For directions to the public meetings, go to www.georgiastateparks.org. Written comments may be submitted to Director.GSPHS@dnr.state.ga.us before January 20, 2012. robina SORBA You can direct your comments/questions directly to the Director as stated above but also feel free to send comments or questions to sorba.csra@gmail.com, we are gathering comments and questions to send to Executive Director Tom Sauret for his meeting after the first of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Dec 25, 2011 15:06:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Jan 12, 2012 9:07:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brianW on Jan 16, 2012 10:54:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by azdrawdy on Jan 16, 2012 11:23:59 GMT -5
This is getting out of hand. Barbara and I really enjoy taking our RV to Ft. Yargo, and have done so several times in the past couple of years. Nice park, outstanding trail. The first thing that hit us as stupid was when I pulled up a couple of years ago and walked in to check in (we had already paid for our reservations on-line), and was told we had to pay a $5 vehicle parking fee for the campground. WHAT? How else am I supposed to get my campsite? Now I am going to pay for a camping site, pay to park my ONE vehicle at the camp site, and pay to ride on the trail. We'll be rethinking our visits to Ft. Yargo, which is sad. We like the entire area, to include the town of Winder. They have probably the greatest hot wings I have ever eaten at Bo's Just my two cents. The state loses on this bonehead maneuver, and the YABA group loses. This is so wrong. MD
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Jan 16, 2012 12:31:49 GMT -5
Moving up for the 40,000 foot view..... I did a little research and came across something called Direction 2015. Below are some of the links that will give you some background. Apparently the overall plan has been brewing for quite a while - Georgia State Parks faced funding cuts from 27 million to 14 million and started working steadily to find ways to cut costs - many have resorted to privatization of concessions within the parks and more aggressive measures. Apparently with Direction 2015 they hope to reduce their reliance on state funding to 25% of their total budgetary needs by 2015. These plans are being put into place fairly stealthily and it appears that each park has been charged with determining how to cut costs and save their parks from closure. That doesn't mean they will always make the right choices, I suspect at least some of them might not have personnel with the business acumen to create solid business plans but it appears they are trying. Take a few minutes and read through some of these. Overall SORBA HQ is working on this - not sure what the outcome will be, the wheels of change are already in motion. This addresses all state parks across the nation but has information specifically about Georgia - •Georgia State Parks found partners to help run five of 64 parks after its $27 million budget was cut to $14 million. www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-23/save-state-parks-closure/50885076/1A couple of links specifically about changes in Georgia State Parks - vogeltalksrving.com/2011/12/changes-ahead-for-georgia-state-parks/athleticbusiness.com/articles/lexisnexis.aspx?lnarticleid=1571759319&lntopicid=136030023Direction 2015 - www.ajc.com/news/parks-system-becoming-less-1225161.htmlHere is the national conference on state parks held in Colorado in May of last year........the Georgia Direction 215 for Georgia State Parks was obviously already well on it's way at this point if you look at slide 20 ..it's too bad they were so stealthy about it ........we might could have impacted it or assisted in some way had we known. 74.91.226.186/Conference_proceedings/2011/R-State_of_America's_State_Parks.pdf
|
|
|
Post by wooglin on Jan 16, 2012 14:15:08 GMT -5
Good info Angela. You should post it to the discussion on the main SORBA board.
/Makes me wonder what exactly state parks are spending money on. //The privatization of a public resource pisses me off.
|
|
|
Post by dgaddis1 on Jan 18, 2012 10:37:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wooglin on Jan 18, 2012 11:11:31 GMT -5
Ah. So State Parks are spending money on picnic tables (which I could care less about), paved parking (which I could care less about), shelters (which I could care less about), bathrooms (port-a-potties are good enough), and water (who doesn't bring their own?), etc. That's about what I figured. None of those are really necessary. I'd favor eliminating them over any fees.
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Jan 18, 2012 12:06:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jan 18, 2012 14:57:22 GMT -5
Look up who votes against things like the Rec Trail Program, and against the land and conservation fund. I am pretty annoyed by the seeming 'unfairness' of the proposed user fee. I think it is kind of ironic you brought the Rec Trail Program into the discussion though. A fund used to support mountain bike trails but is paid by off-road fuel taxes (i.e. motorcycle, atvs, and other vehicles that will never be allowed to use those trails). Doesn't sound 'fair' to me.
|
|
|
Post by mhanna on Jan 18, 2012 15:57:00 GMT -5
Great article Dustin.
I don't have a problem with the new fees as long as a yearly pass is available. It's still the cheapest fun around IMHO. Thank god they are not for-profit businesses. Can't imagine what the costs would be.
It's just a sign of the times and we will probably see more things like this as time goes on. At least they are building in exceptions for folks who are willing to, and have put some sweat equity in to build and maintain the trails, so that is positive.
All the state parks I have visited in the last few years seem to be using the money they have wisely. At least at the park level anyway. Have no clue what goes on in admin at the state level.
I just hope the grant programs to fund building new trails doesn't vanish.
MH
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Jan 18, 2012 16:08:52 GMT -5
Look up who votes against things like the Rec Trail Program, and against the land and conservation fund. I am pretty annoyed by the seeming 'unfairness' of the proposed user fee. I think it is kind of ironic you brought the Rec Trail Program into the discussion though. A fund used to support mountain bike trails but is paid by off-road fuel taxes (i.e. motorcycle, atvs, and other vehicles that will never be allowed to use those trails). Doesn't sound 'fair' to me. I agree with your interpretation of the fairness of the RTP. But, I never said a word about fairness. Here is my take on fairness. I am fully aware that "fair" comes to state capital once a year and life isn't "fair". RTP supports alot more trails than just MTB trails. And by law is 100% funded with off road fuel taxes and by law a minimum of 30% of the money has to be spent on motorized off road trails. 100% funding. ~30% spending. Unfair. We agree. But fairness isn't an issue with me. I am no more annoyed with the fee for mtbers than I am the fee for disc golfers. My point is simple. I am not surprised to see a southern conservative state cut its recreation funding and impose user fees. Some here seem surprised to hear of such of move by GA DNR. I am not surprised. It is par for the course, really.
|
|
|
Post by seenvic on Jan 18, 2012 16:12:32 GMT -5
I just hope the grant programs to fund building new trails doesn't vanish. MH I got this last nite in my inbox. Sorry to hijack this to RTP. --------------------- The following message was sent to the Coaltion for Recreational Trails Council of Advisors. The message is important for any group who has an interest in the future of the Recreational Trails Program. Right now, that future is pretty bleak. We need to work to improve the chances of the RTP program for the future. Remember, this is the single biggest source of funding for OHV trails in the nation. It is also paid for entirely by the un-refunded federal OHV gas tax. The Americans for Responsible Recreational Access website will also have information about the program and efforts made to keep the RTP in the future. Let's make sure to flood the Senate's phone lines and e-mail boxes so they understand how important this program is. The Recreational Trails Program is in very deep trouble. The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved transportation reauthorization legislation known as MAP-21 that would effectively eliminate the RTP by stripping the program of its dedicated funding. But all hope is not lost. CRT and its member organizations have been working to identify key Champions in the Senate with the aim of having an amendment to restore dedicated funding for the RTP added to the bill before it is considered by the full Senate. Reaching this goal will not be possible without your help. Now is the time for all organizations and individuals who support RTP to tell their Senators to protect dedicated funding for this absolutely essential program. The key messages are simple: • Unless the bill is changed, MAP-21 will effectively eliminate the Recreational Trails Program; and • Please amend MAP-21 to include dedicated funding for RTP. Other helpful messages include: • For the last two decades, RTP has received a portion of the gas taxes paid by users of off-highway motorized vehicles to fund trail building, maintenance and other trail-related projects. More than 13,000 projects have been funded across the country for all kinds of trail uses. This is a very successful program. • At its current level of annual funding – $85 million – RTP receives less than 42% of the Federal Highway Administration’s conservative estimate of the federal gas taxes paid by America’s nonhighway recreationists. The Senate bill would reduce that percentage to zero and represents a substantial new tax on motorized recreation enthusiasts. • The return of gas taxes to trail users through the RTP is in keeping with the user-pay, user-benefit philosophy of the Highway Trust Fund. Ending dedicated funding for RTP takes these gas taxes away from the people who pay them. Ending dedicated funding for RTP is bad public policy and just plain wrong. • The RTP is the foundation of state trail programs. If the RTP loses its dedicated funding, organized trail planning and development will simply vanish in many areas of the country. Now is the time to act. Write, email or call your two Senators. Here’s a link if you need it: www.senate.gov/. Make sure your entire grassroots organization is engaged as well. We need to show the United States Senate just how many Americans are committed to the Recreational Trails Program. If we don’t act, the very backbone of trails in America may be forever lost. Please be sure to send us a copy of your message. Thank you for your help. Marianne Fowler, Co-Chair, Coalition for Recreational Trails Derrick Crandall, Co-Chair, Coalition for Recreational Trails 1225 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 450 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-9530 Fax (202) 682-9529 cahern@funoutdoors.com
|
|