The Life of an OHV "Green Sticker" Dollar

Issues relating to the California Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation / Green Sticker Fund

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

The Life of an OHV "Green Sticker" Dollar

Post by Winston Cup »

For years many people have speculated as to just how much money is generated and actualy goes into the famous "Green Sticker" OHV Trust Fund along with how it is distributed.

Now after intense pressure from OHV Groups, Ca. State Parks has created and made available, in their own obscure way cause it took some digging to get it, this explaination and Budget Estimate of the Green Sticker OHV Trust Fund for fiscal year 2004 - 2005. It does do a real good job of explaining how the fund works, for that I'll give them credit because that part at the very least has been needed for a long time.

I encourage everyone to to download the PDF at the bottom and take a look at this thing.

Now this isn't the whole story, trust me, but it is a start and it's numbers like this that raise a whole host of new questions. The problems with the Ca. "Green Sticker" OHV Trust Fund run much deeper than the makeup of that OHMVR Commission, although they are directly related. The political and environmental extremist's influence into how this fund is directed is much, much deeper within the system. Exposing and attacking this "influence" on a root level is the only way to fix it at this point. The ASA along with ORBA has been and is still working on the rest of the story, so hopefully more to come soon.

Caution
If your drinking coffee or anything like that, put it down and swallow before you go any further.


Just to give you a quickie highlight, we start with just about $50 million dollars, yep I said 50, and we end up with about 17 million left over for various grants to areas outside of the SVRA's. Also a note in regards to the SVRA's, the State Vehicular Recreation Areas, are OHV parks that are operated by the OHMVR Division of California State Parks and are funded every year automatically, they get their money first, they are not funded from grant allocations, they do not have to go through the grant process. There are six SVRA's, Oceano aka Pismo, Hungry Valley, Hollister Hills, Carnegie, Ocotillo Wells and Prairie City.

Also another note, if you notice the breakdown of registered vs unregistered, as I understand it these calculations are based on old data and formulas from way back when the Green Sticker Program was started, back when most didn't register their OHV because it was a new deal and just getting started. Of course over the recent years the regulations regarding how this particular part of the fund can be spent have been let's say.....jacked with a bit. The $25.4 million dollars you see there is basically being used against us.

The powers that be have, for all intents and purposes, taken what was once a fund created for the benefit of OHV activity and effectively turned it into a "sin tax". The balance left over for grants is used for leverage to further promote the green coalitions agenda. "Do what we want, ban this, restrict that, close this, shutdown that and we'll toss you a bone".

There is a new study by Ca, State Parks that has been underway for some time now and the new data will eventually change how those figures are calculated. This new study should have been started and done a decade ago. The deadline for this study has been pushed back a few times so we're still waiting for the results of that deal. Maybe they're waiting for numbers they like, who knows.

There are quit a few theories as to how this new study will affect the fund dollar wise. I'll try to lay those out, at least the ones I'm aware of, including mine, later on in this thread. I'd also like to hear any other theories anyone wants to contribute.

What happens in between those two figures of $50 million and $17 million is fascinating to say the least.

To download the PDF click here
The Life of an OHV "Green Sticker" Dollar

Now if this doesn't raise any questions...........
Last edited by Winston Cup on Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guy Chrest

Image

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

A few pages of particular interest.
Image
Image
Image
Image

Although certainly not the whole picture. This thing is very informative.
Guy Chrest

Image

User avatar
Bob Tenwick
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2550
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 3:22 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Bob Tenwick »

Whoa!

No wonder the greenies have such an interest in allocating OUR money.

Outrageous.

desertsteve
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 10:23 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: san diego

Post by desertsteve »

Yeh ! and how much did the ISDRA get :shock:

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck »

BTW - Keep in mind that the $25.4 M allocated for *CESA: The Conservation & Enforcement Services Account within the OHV Trust Fund, is for "restoration of trails".

What is "restoration of trails" you ask?

NOT what you might think. It is the act of taking existing trails and restoring them to NEVER be driven or ridden again.

We learned this at our January TRT meeting. The BLM was encouraged by an OHMVR commisioner to submit grants for this. They said no thanks.

Your gas tax dollars at work for you.

Now tell me.. What has this definition of restoration of trails have to do with an OHV Program?

Here is the kicker. The more unregistered OHVs there are, the more money goes into that account.
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
schraderrl
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:42 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by schraderrl »

The green sticker program from the beginning (1970?) has been misleading and hard to follow and now that it’s run by mostly liberals, I am leery of every move they make.

The latest spin story that’s tough to follow is the future Riverside OHV Park.
Not sure of just where this new park will be, at first I thought Riverside County
Then I read its Northern California?
http://www.mxlarge.com/article.php?arti ... 773756.php

User avatar
Crowdog
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Post by Crowdog »

schraderrl wrote:
The latest spin story that’s tough to follow is the future Riverside OHV Park.
Not sure of just where this new park will be, at first I thought Riverside County
Then I read its Northern California?
http://www.mxlarge.com/article.php?arti ... 773756.php
OHMVR is still moving forward with a SVRA in Riverside County. Even Spitler stated there was a need for a legal place for people to ride in Riverside.

In the article you provided, Riverside Motorsports Park in Merced County appears to be a private venture, not a replacement for the new SVRA in Riverside County.

SailAway
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 10:39 am

Post by SailAway »

Guy -- EXCELLENT THREAD :D

Robert -- the "River" in the Riverside article you posted appears to be named for one of the rivers running through the Merced/Atwater/Modesto area and not "our" Riverside down here.

It's very cool that they're building that kind of park up there... that area used to have a little bit of life with the airbase in full swing but now it's downright depressing to drive through there.

You may be thinking of the Riverside OHV park that has sorta kinda been a little bit promised in the badlands down here. Now that's a deal that we should all be worried about. Do some research into that and I'm sure you'd agree.

Vicki
Vicki Warren
President of DUNERS and Friends of
Dumont Dunes user groups
http://www.duners.org
http://www.FriendsOfDumontDunes.org

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

Click on the pic below to download a full size map of the proposed Riverside SVRA in Riverside County, near Beaumont.

Image

There is an open house meeting scheduled for the 10th of march, next week, we just learned of and that I will be attending on this deal. I'm told this meeting will mainly focus on the purchase of mitigation land for the proposed svra, like we have'nt given enough already. On the face of it this proposed svra looks like a plus for the OHV community, but I gotta tell you, it's tough to find the details on this deal so we've been looking into it and there are some very serious concerns about this project as things come to light. Two main concerns are the Lockheed toxic site, of which is a big part of this project, and the mitigation land. It's definitley is a plus for the environmentalist either way you look at it. They get a ton of habitat out of it and we foot the bill once again. Who knows maybe the whole thing will end up as habitat depending on how the cards fall, so it's something to look into for sure, and because we're a part of the OHV community and also because it is our money too, the ASA is doing that alongside ORBA. As we learn more facts we'll get them out. In the mean time everyone should be paying attention to this deal.

I will tell you one thing, it's definitely an expensive project and all these svra's, as we're learning, are extremely expensive to run every year. As it says in the report above, about a third of the total budget goes to run these svra's every year, and in some cases much, much more. Heck if you look at it acre for acre, user per user, these svra's make the ISDRA look like a heck of a bargain.

I'll dig up the official notice on that meeting and post it a bit later as I don't have it handy right now.
Last edited by Winston Cup on Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Guy Chrest

Image

SailAway
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 10:39 am

Post by SailAway »

Winston Cup wrote:In the mean time everyone should be paying attention to this deal.
You said a mouthful there (or typed a fistful?)

Believe it or not, there are some OHV leaders actively supporting this park (that's one thing) and the deals (behind closed doors) that have had to be made to get it (and that's a whole different thing).

And yes, the fees are convoluted. There is already a fee being charged to developers for "species protection" that includes a deal for this measly parcel of OHV land... and now they're talking about more?

Last July we wrote to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors objecting to their support of this whole deal. Here's a quote from Bob Buster:
Growth is what is largely causing the threat to species survival, so it is fair that new development, not existing taxpayers, pay a portion of the costs of carrying out the ESA. This fee is scaled to provide enough funding to purchase from willing sellers 56,000 acres of land over the next twenty-five years. Another 97,000 acres of private land will be acquired by State and Federal agencies. That additional 153,000 acres of purchased private land will be coupled with 247,000 acres of already existing public lands set aside for conservation and will protect up to 146 different animal species that could be threatened with extinction. In exchange, development will be allowed on some 500,000 acres of land in the western county in the next decades. One of the first major joint purchases will 11,000 acres in the Badlands near Beaumont owned by the Lockheed Corp. Most of the property will be set aside as a natural reserve, but several hundred acres will become a new ORV park.
Wow. So far (and that was 8 months ago) we have 400,000 acres set aside for conservation and "several hundred acres" for a new ORV park.

Guy, I can't find the meeting notice, but I can look further (I know it's here somewhere). Please post it if you find it first.

Vicki
Vicki Warren
President of DUNERS and Friends of
Dumont Dunes user groups
http://www.duners.org
http://www.FriendsOfDumontDunes.org

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed Acquisition of Mitigation, Access and Support Lands -
Riverside Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Park

The California Department of Parks and Recreation, pursuant to California Resources Code Section 5006.1, will hold a hearing on a proposal to purchase lands from willing sellers to the west of the cities of Beaumont and Calimesa in Riverside County as mitigation, access and support for the Riverside Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Park.

The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the possible acquisition of lands that include and surround the Lockheed-Laborde property. The purpose of these property acquisitions is to:

• Protect and manage habitat linkages in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Badlands sub region as mitigation, and

• Provide for public access to, and staging areas for, the Lockheed-Laborde property for its use as a possible OHV Park.

Discussion of plans for a possible OHV Park on the Lockheed-Laborde property will take place at a future meeting, which has not as yet been scheduled. Plans for Lockheed-Laborde will not be discussed at this meeting.

Please join us anytime between 4 and 8 p.m. on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 in Room 5 of the Beaumont Civic Center at 550 E. 6th Street in which maps will be displayed for review and Department personnel will be available to answer questions and receive written comments.

Written comments may also be sent to the undersigned at the letterhead address above or by e-mail to smill@parks.ca.gov. Please direct any inquiries regarding this notice or requests for special assistance to Mike Brown at (916) 324-1570 or mbrow@parks.ca.gov.


Warren E. Westrup, Chief
Office of Acquisition and Real Property Services
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Guy Chrest

Image

Kimpossible
ASA Clean-Up Chairperson
ASA Clean-Up Chairperson
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 4:03 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Kimpossible »

More information on the subject: http://www.offroadaccess.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=375

In light of these issues the OHV community has been requested to send a letter to the Govenor, the above link highlights what should be included in the letter.

Some of us have been privy to information that would make you put your coffee down. It is important for the OHV Community to put a stop to the closed door/private agreements that are being made. For example, it is suspected that even though Riverside will be purchased with OHV funds, that park will never open to OHV use. There are many issues just like Riverside that needs to be addressed.

SailAway
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 10:39 am

Post by SailAway »

Kimpossible wrote:It is important for the OHV Community to put a stop to the closed door/private agreements that are being made.
Yeah, what she said!
Vicki Warren
President of DUNERS and Friends of
Dumont Dunes user groups
http://www.duners.org
http://www.FriendsOfDumontDunes.org

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

To see my report on the Riverside SVRA Beaumonte March 10th meeting click on this link Proposed New SVRA in Riverside County to view the thread I created focusing on that particular topic. It was a very productive meeting.
Guy Chrest

Image

Voice
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:56 am

Post by Voice »

Well, I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this stuff...
The first thing that screams out to me is...
"How in the world do they know how many unregistered OHV's there are?"
But, I'm sure it's similar to the BLM's method of counting people at Glamis. ;)
Side note: I've seen mentioned many times that Glamis has one of, if not THE highest rate of registered OHV's in California.

The next thing that pounds in my head is the ratio of "Support" to "total expenditures"... $37 mil in "support" out of an entire budget of $67 mil...
That's over HALF of the entire budget, to administer this flawed program.
Similar to Demo Fee. Same situation. Remove the program all together and reduce monitairy needs by half!
In other words... if there were NO Green sticker program then their would only need to be $30 mil or less then half the amount of money raised to maintain the status quo!
If there were no Green sticker program and the money was simply apropriated from the State's General Fund like EVERYTHING ELSE, then the State would save $37 MIL... in a program which is only $67 mil!!!

It's my belief that the best way to fight this kind of corruption is to have the program disbanded all together. Trying to fix this looks like an excercise in futility. As long as Glamis is a FEDERAL wilderness it will always be the poor stepchild to the SVRA's and support from this program will be minimal at best. That Glamis EVER got money from this program is surprising.

PS: This looks kind of like the future of Demo Fee! ;)

Brian
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a letter to President Elect Barak Obama
"May God Almighty ... bless the leaders of societies with the courage to learn from the mistakes of predecessors,"
"I hope that you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy."

Image

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck »

Voice wrote:Well, I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this stuff...
The first thing that screams out to me is...
"How in the world do they know how many unregistered OHV's there are?"
Brian, I don't know the whole story, but from what I've heard, it went something like this..

When this program was started, the State of CA 'asked' people how many OHV's they had. They also 'asked' them how many were registered.

A-B=X% of $$$ to Conservation.

That calculation is still being used today. I wish I could remember the ratio that is being used. Anyone? Larry Jowdy?
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma »

Umm...Brian I think you're misreading that. Support isn't support for the program - it's support for the state run SVRA's like hungry valley. They get first dibs at the money and then whatever is left over everyone else has to squabble over.

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

Actually Brian is partly correct Jason. The six SVRA's take up about 18-20 million, the rest of the 37 million is for administrating the program. From what we've looked at so far, the administration expenses are very questionable to say the least and this bs you hear about the OHV fund being transparent now is a load of ********, they're putting out just enough to confuse you and if you look at the graphs they are misleading. I've got a hardcopy breakdown I'll need to scan and post later today.

As far as this looking like the future of demo fee. I have always refered to the demo fee program as "the baby green sticker program". Got odd looks everytime I said that, but it's my little inside joke.

Keeping looking through that deal and tell me what else you find that's odd. When I post a jpg of the support breakdown you'll really have questions. Just wish I could have gotten an electronic file.

Also take a look at Kimpossibles site http://www.offroadaccess.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=375
Guy Chrest

Image

Voice
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:56 am

Post by Voice »

Ok, I went back and tried to figure out exaxtly what is included in "SUPPORT" and sure enough "Historicly 1/3 of the SUPPORT budget has been allocated to the SVRA's" but that is far from clear.
This "report" if that's what it's called, is long on pictures and slogans... "The color of money" but very short on facts and figures.

Just what does this mean?
OHMVR DIVISION SUPPORT …….. $ 37,818,000
A. Division Operations …… ……. $ 26,103,260
B. General Government Costs … $ 11,714,740

After re-reading this pile of crap I am more convinced then ever that this thing is nothing more then a money shuffling machine and it needs to be thrown out!

Brian
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a letter to President Elect Barak Obama
"May God Almighty ... bless the leaders of societies with the courage to learn from the mistakes of predecessors,"
"I hope that you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy."

Image

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

Voice wrote:Ok, I went back and tried to figure out exaxtly what is included in "SUPPORT" and sure enough "Historicly 1/3 of the SUPPORT budget has been allocated to the SVRA's" but that is far from clear.
This "report" if that's what it's called, is long on pictures and slogans... "The color of money" but very short on facts and figures.

Just what does this mean?
OHMVR DIVISION SUPPORT …….. $ 37,818,000
A. Division Operations …… ……. $ 26,103,260
B. General Government Costs … $ 11,714,740

After re-reading this pile of crap I am more convinced then ever that this thing is nothing more then a money shuffling machine and it needs to be thrown out!

Brian
Brian, right, right, and right on.

Here's a scan of that doc I promised. A little bit more of the puzzle.
Click on the pic to see a larger view.
Image

As we go along, when we got one question answered, like usual it leads to more questions and so on. So we'll keep digging and see what we can see.

As far as "throwing it out" Brian. Personally I'm looking at this deal with a "fix it or kill it" mentality so I'll just leave it at that.
Guy Chrest

Image

Voice
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:56 am

Post by Voice »

"Go Kart improvements"???
"Snow Grooming Program"???
"BCP"??? What the heck is this? It's the largest budgeted item and it just has initials???
"Practice track facilities"???

Oh my...

Fix it or kill it??? I vote KILL IT!

Killing the Green Sticker or OHMVRA program is something that I could seriously get behind... Fixing it is not. ;)

Brian
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a letter to President Elect Barak Obama
"May God Almighty ... bless the leaders of societies with the courage to learn from the mistakes of predecessors,"
"I hope that you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy."

Image

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

Brian "BCP" as I understand it is "Budget Change Proposal" and I'll get the details of exactly what that is as soon as I can dig it up here. It's late and I'm a bit foggy on it right now, lol.

As far as fixing it or killing it. I'm not sure at this point which would be harder. But what I do know is that if you want to "fix" something you first have to know and be able to specify in detail exactly what's wrong and if you want to "kill" something you have to able to specify in detail exactly why it should be killed, otherwise nothing happens and it's the same o same o. Either route requires a ton of the same research and like always that's the hard, boring and not so fun part of the deal. We've been doing that for some time now and there's much more happening on that end than I can show you here at this point for obvious reasons. Pretty much everyday we learn something new and we've still got a ways to go to lay the ground work for whatever action is eventually decided upon. This OHMVR deal is just another piece of the big puzzle and everything is interrelated at some point or another.

When you go to the powers that be, what ever you intend to do, you have to have the knowledge, understanding and the facts of what your dealing with, because if you get a shot, chances are it's your only shot.

To quote Grant "The ASA never brings a knife to a gun fight"
Guy Chrest

Image

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

Why the State and the OHV prgram overspend so much.

Post by Red Dog »

There is this new fangled thing call stakeholders used extensively by the old Davis adimistration, to roll over public oppostion to spending increases. In the OHV stakeholder process, the OHVers are just one stakeholder group. There are enviro stakholders, and non motorized recreation stakeholders and other stakholders, OHVers are just one out of many stakeholder groups set up to give very well steered input into the OHV prgram. Funny thing is - when is the last time any OHVers were invited to give input on non-motorized trails, or how to manage rafting on say a currently designated wild and scenic river segment?

Anyway, these stakeholders are only advisory, and the administration did not tell the stakeholders how much a the new programs they were agreeing to would end up costiing interms of millions of dollars forever. Support budgets once approved have no end in sight, the increases become a fix part of the budget. So a ten million approved increase in the OHV support budget equated to 100 million dollars spend over then years time. Hurry up - agree with what we want you to agree with - and lets move on, that was and is the stakeholders process. And the excuse why the budget breaking spending increases are OK, well the Stakeholders agreed to it. However, the Stakehodlers never were told how much what they agreed to would cost, till other, besides the Stakeholders started asking questions. The Budget increase were decided by largely non publicly disclosed documents called budget Change Proposals.

To see how wild the spending under Davis was not this. Under the old Wilson admin the suppoirt budget went up 20% in eight years, and the support budget under the Davis people went up 210% in five years. They hired a fancy faciliatator at to use the "Dephi technique" on the Stakeholders. Here is information that explain how the Dephi Technique works, and it you want to increase spending wildly without much oppostion unil it is almost too late, the Dephi %technique works like a charm. ==

BEWARE - the Delphi Technique
Trained Facilitators in public meetings .

The following is from the book
None Dare Call it Education,
by John A. Stormer
published by Liberty Bell Press
P.O. Box 32, Florissant, MO 63032

How Communities Are Manipulated

The individual who gets involved will soon encounter the way educators, civic leaders, businessmen, the clergy and parents are manipulated using the Delphi Technique. Delphi is a method for obtaining a predetermined "consensus" among a diverse group of individuals who may or may not be knowledgeable about a field of endeavor or problem.

The Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation, a liberal think tank, in the 1960s. It was developed originally as a way of using repeated surveying of a group of people to bring them to agreement or "consensus."

The original survey technique has been adapted for use in controlling and manipulating meetings or study groups called to get public input for issues in education, police community relations, state control of child care, etc.

The survey approach, when used, is supposedly anonymous. It is done with a group of people who may never come face to face. A knowledgeable person has little opportunity to get exposure of his or her views or ideas to the entire group. It is a technique used by the educational establishment (often financed by the U.S. Department of Education) for reaching a supposed consensus on curriculum goals, content or instructional methods. Widely used as a technique for developing programs "to meet the needs of an individual state or community" the results often turn out to be almost identical, even in wording, to those adopted in other communities or states.

How Delphi Works

Using a series of surveys to develop a "consensus" was the original technique. A 100 page report using a Delphi technique survey done in 1989 is typical. The study was titled, Teacher Perceptions of the Effects of Implementation of Outcome-Based education. It was financed and distributed by ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) of the U.S. Department of Education. The report described the method used. It said: A random sample of 60 teachers was selected from 600 teachers in an Iowa school district. The 60 teachers were given a "survey" which included 39 "statements" concerning educational goals and implementation of OBE. Those surveyed were given a choice of six responses from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Space was provided for writing any comments or reactions to each statement.

When the surveys were returned, those conducting them tallied the results and analyzed the comments. An effort was made to determine the degree to which at least 75% of those responding would accept each of the statements. On the first "try" 75% or more of those responding agreed to (or would go along with) twenty of the original thirty-nine statements or premises. Those twenty statements became a part of the "consensus."

Try, Try And Try Again

A month later the sixty participants were surveyed again. They were asked to rethink their positions and then were again given the nineteen statements on which there had been no "consensus." When these tabulations were done, there was a consensus on twelve of the nineteen. Thirty days later, a third survey was done on the last seven points. By the time the third round was completed and the written comments were tabulated, it was found that a consensus was achieved and at least 75% of the participants were "in agreement" on the pre-determined package of statements. When the Delphi "consensus" is achieved, a lengthy and comprehensive report can be prepared and released using the "consensus" to support the goals and techniques of OBE or a tax increase or some other new project. When experienced teachers, or citizens, or business leaders, etc. have come to a "consensus" anyone disagreeing, must obviously be uninformed or out of step and may be an odd ball. The technique avoids the possibility of informed people with conflicting views influencing others.

Ultimately, depending on how big the project is, the "consensus" may be packaged beautifully (expensively) for dissemination to parents, teachers, legislators, and media.

Technique Used To Control Meetings

Delphi has been adapted for use in meetings where participants are present. Panels, groups and community meetings are manipulated to develop a community "consensus" which is then sold to the public. Here's how it works:

A group of interested citizens, community leaders, pastors, labor and business leaders, etc. are invited with the announced goal of "getting input" to develop a community "consensus on the problem of XYZ." The session starts with a general assembly addressed by an "expert" from Washington, a college, etc. He or she sets forth the "problem," the "opportunity" and general goals all can agree upon. There may be 50, 75, 100 or 250 in attendance in the general session.

When the general session ends, attendees may be instructed to check the package of materials they received when they registered to find a numbered or colored card -- red, blue, green, orange, etc. This determines the breakout session they will attend with 10 to 40 others. There will be a "facilitator' running each breakout session. There may be a panel of lesser experts to help in the discussion. When the time comes for input (comments and suggestions from the group), a call may be issued for a volunteer to serve as the "recorder" or "secretary." Normally one has already been chosen to "volunteer." This person may work at a chalkboard. As suggestions and proposals are made, the "recorder" will say, "I think we can simplify that to say" Or "I think what you are saying is ...." Or "Can we say it this way..." An unwelcome comment or question can be disregarded by the recorder who says "That's outside the scope of what we are dealing with today."

They will usually get five to eight such suggestions, at which time there is a break before going back to the general session. The "recorders" from each group get together and construct a joint "consensus" of the ideas and agreements from their sessions. A list of "agreed upon" goals, etc. is presented to the entire group. There will not usually be opportunities given for additional comments or disagreements in the general session when the "consensus" is presented.

Through the entire process, of course, care is taken to isolate the informed, opinionated individual who could sway the entire group if given an opportunity to speak. If there are half a dozen such people in attendance, the odds are they will be in different breakout sessions so they cannot support one another. In the final report on "consensus," a conservative or traditional answer may be thrown in. However, it will be presented in a way which indicates it was probably a joke. Everyone will laugh at how impossible that approach would be. This will serve to further intimidate other right thinking people. Many in attendance may be uneasy with the "consensus" but they don't want to appear stupid or out of step so they go along with the group's "consensus."

Selling the "Consensus"

In due time the community or state is flooded with a fancy, pretty "tool kit" selling the tax increase or promoting OBE, School-to-Work or a new approach to meeting the health "needs" of the community. The "consensus" may be joined or supported by the American Association of University Women, the state or local affiliate of the National Education Association, the local ministerial association, or the state or local Catholic Conference, the Chamber of Commerce, the Labor Council, etc.

The steamroller gets media support. When concerned citizens form a group for "Excellence in Education" or "Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility," they will be ignored or pictured as enemies of public education or "progress." Goal of the entire process is the changing of beliefs and attitudes. That isn't difficult today. After 50 years of progressive education and the liberalization of most mainline churches and religious denominations, many people aren't sure about what they believe. Even if they have a "gut" reaction that something is wrong, they have no solid foundational beliefs on which to base opposition or from which to offer creative constitutional solutions if there is a real problem.

What Can Be Done When Faced With Delphi?

Recognizing the technique and how to combat it is important. It may be possible to disrupt the process or enable a knowledgeable individual to locate others in the meeting who are uneasy but do not realize how they are being manipulated. Here are six simple steps:

Know what you believe. Go to such meetings prepared.
If possible ask in the first general session, "Will we have an opportunity here to discuss or question any consensus brought in from the breakout sessions?"
If a group of concerned friends attend, don't all sit together. Then, if when one person speaks, those in other parts of the room can rise in support.
When speaking or disputing, face and speak to the audience and not the "facilitator" or panel. Have friends who will speak up and agree or say, "We want to hear more from...:'
If necessary, afterwards issue a "Dissenting (not a minority) Report." In the big meeting, if the announced consensus is out of line, try to get the floor to ask anyone who disagrees and wishes to participate in a dissenting report to contact you. Get names, addresses and phone numbers.
Enlist supporters in Service Clubs, Veterans Groups, Senior Citizens Groups, labor unions, etc. to question the announced consensus and distribute any dissenting report.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

Post by Red Dog »

The amount for administrative overhead proposed to come out of the proposed 37.8 million dollar OHV support budget is 11.7 million. The entire OHV support budget was 12.4 million dollars just five years ago.

Now go figure, how did the administrative overhead grow to be nearly equal what the entire support budget was just five years ago? The answer is a lack of good costs controls. It the same reason the State is now broke.

Some top OHV leaders have allways demanded to know were all the money for grants is going, down to counting the rolls of toilet paper used in grant funded restrooms. But it is hard to understand why these same OHV leaders did not question the biggest part of the the OHV budget, the OHV support budget, while the support budget was increasing so dramtically these past few years? Some just did not know a thing about the budget process, or the role of the support budget plays, but others did.

The questions that should be asked include just were are these people working that the taxpayers are paying for with the 37.7 million dollar OHV support budget. What are they doing? How much work is being contracted out and for how much, and for what?

The bottome line is the OHV Community has every right to know the spending deatails of the OHV support budget, to at least the degree as the grants program spending is disclosed and scruitinized. after all, the total amount awarded for OHV grant at 17 million dollars, is less than half the amount proposed to be spent on the OHV support budget, 37.8 million dollars.

On way to put it would be this == Given the limited amount of information you have seen so far, would you be willing to give out 37.8 million dollars per year in OHV funds with no end in sight?

Gottaride
4th Gear Member
4th Gear Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 11:13 am

Post by Gottaride »

Very interesting.

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver »

Not only interesting but should be concerning to anyone who lives in Calif. and pays into the OHV Trust Fund (Green Sticker). Check it out and see if you see anything that has been misrepresented in this thread about the OHV Trust Fund and how it's operating. I live in Ariz. and we have our own problems with a similar fund but nothing like what is happening in Calif.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

Post by Red Dog »

The support budget increase 20% in eight years and then jumped up 210% in five years. That is not just a red flag, it is a red flag that is on fire. So where are the fiscal watchdogs? They must be asleep and snoring. The spending is now outstripping the revenue, and the budget reserves are all used up from form all the spending increases.

Revenue may well drop due to a new fancy revenue study, it might go up too, but who nows for sure. One thing for sure is you should not be increasing spending, when you have no reserves left, and you are not certain of how much the future revenues will be.

The old revenue flow was based an out of date presumption that there were lots of unregisted OHVs, maybe six unregistered OHVs for every registered one. The thought is maybe the SUVs wll make up the difference when the new study revenue study comes out, but that is a big assumption, because the vast majority of SUVs see very little off-road use.

So, the bottom could fall out of the revenue, and top of this, the non motorized recreation folks have been lead to believe they are likely to get a sizable cut out of the OHV Fund, on the premise that people drive 4X4s to get to hiking areas, and people pull horse trailer on dirt roads.

Now theres is some talk of going back to giving a fairer share of funding for the maintenance of areas where most of the OHV riding occures, but this may be mostly token. There is not much money left in the fund, and the revenue is mostly committed to other spending, like the 11.7 million dollars in overhead alone. Many of the grants are muli year grants, so a big chunck of the grants funding is already committed to mutile year projects like route designation and long term monitoring studies. The current grant funding levels may also drop soon, due to drops in revenue, and the impact of increased spending in other program areas. This stuff does not take a fiscal genious figure out, just a bit of common sense, a little forsight, and some fiscal honesty.

User avatar
Bob Tenwick
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2550
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 3:22 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Bob Tenwick »

At this point this may well be the most interesting and meaningful thread on the internet to a Californian off-roader. It's sure as hell got my attention.

I'm tempted to pin it to Wide Open Sand or ISDRA. Thoughts?

User avatar
Greg Hall
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 9:40 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Contact:

Post by Greg Hall »

Bob Tenwick wrote:At this point this may well be the most interesting and meaningful thread on the internet to a Californian off-roader. It's sure as hell got my attention.

I'm tempted to pin it to Wide Open Sand or ISDRA. Thoughts?
I agree...do it!
Greg Hall
KG6IAT
http://www.hallsengine.com
Visiting and helping to protect the dunes since 1962
Image

http://www.RideOcotilloWells.com

'06 KTM 525EXC
'98 KTM 620SC
'06 KDX 200..my son's bike
KX 100 My 11 year old son's
KFX 400 also my son's bike
LT 500..all mine

User avatar
LoBuck
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6786
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:48 am
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Yuma, AZ
Contact:

Post by LoBuck »

Pin it where it is. OHMVR
Glenn Montgomery - KE7BTP
'79 CJ5
http://www.YumaDuners.com - LoBuck's Web Page
DAC ISDRA Sub Group Member - AZ OHV Rep BLM ISDRA DSG webpage

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

Guys I'm not sure where you should put it to get more people to pay attention. I know all this stuff is a long read and many just plain don't want to deal with it. I don't blame them really, it's confusing, and it's like reading from the middle of a book, but I'm doing the best I can to lay it all out as easy to understand as possible and as factual as possible. A ton of work has and is going into this deal. A lot of digging is still going on. Whether people pay attention to it or not is up to them. But the information is here if they want to find it. There will be more to come.

We will not fix this deal by simply changing the make up of the commission, the problems we've found run much much deeper, and at this point changing the makeup of the commission isn't even an option anyway. Not yet at least.

Kim Kammer put together this sample letter and we're encouraging people to send some variation of it to the governor. If we can flood his office with letters such as this, we can get his attention on this matter and some other matters with this OHMVR program as well. People sending in these letters will back up what we are doing on the legislative end of things. So we need everyones help here.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

This letter is to request that the Department of Finance look into the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Community’s concerns that OHV Trust Funds may be overextended, and the spending definition of what is OHV related stretched too far. Over the years the OHV Community was uninvolved in the State Parks Department ‘s use of OHV Trust Funds for operational expense, and on many capitol outlay items, and this may have been a big mistake on our part.

The amount of OHV Trust Funds for support of the Parks Department has grown from 12.2 million dollars, to a proposed 37.8 million, in just five years, a 210% increase. During the Wilson administration the increase over eight years was only about 20%. I request to be informed of details of all the expenses included in the 37.8 million dollars of OHV Trust funds proposed for use by Parks Department for operational support.

The proposed budget includes positions to immediately staff an OHV Park in Riverside, with toxic waste cleanup issues and other significant concerns. This proposed OHV Park will not likely be open within the next three years, if ever. Still even these staff increases alone do come close to explaining the steep OHV Trust Funds spending increases, so contracting expenses need also to be looked at carefully.

The OHV program is conducting a study of it’s main revenue source, gas tax revenues. It unsound to raise spending greatly when future revenues are uncertain. Also, the OHV program itself is set to legislatively sunset on January 1st, 2007. On top that, the OHV Trust Fund reserves have been wiped out due to recent unusually high spending levels.

Please investigate this matter in detail, and please give pause to these huge Parks Department support budget increases from the OHV Trust Fund. It is important that the Public OHV Community can again be confident that our tax dollars, and OHV Trust Funds, are really only for what they were intended for in a truly frugal manner. Please contact me for further information and I very much appreciate your help.



Yours truly,
To get to Kims site, click here Image

Bob this letter of Kims may be something you want to "Sticky" as another deal in it's self to get more attention to it so we can get some letters out.
Guy Chrest

Image

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

Red Dog, you are definitely right on the mark. Your observations, your knowledge of the issues, and your input here are a huge help to say the least. Very sharp.

Some of these items you've mentioned I would like to break out into another topic over the next couple days. One item being the use of the Dephi Technique on the stakeholders. This is something we learned about just shortly after Kieth joined the Stakeholders committee. He picked up on it right off the bat. He apparently was previously familiar with the tactics and recognized it. He wanted to wait a bit to confirm it and research it more. It's also been tough for us to figure out a way to explain it without it coming off as "black helicopter" like, but it does come off that way no matter what, lol.

There is a figure of 200k for the stakeholders in one of the items I posted above. This Delphi Technique "Facilitator" is a big part of that figure.

Tell ya what, for anyone paying attention here. Do a internet search using the words "Delphi Technique" and see what you get.
Guy Chrest

Image

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

Fixing California

Post by Red Dog »

Many have moved to Arizona to escape the anti business climate in California. Part of the problem in California is an attitude in goverment that stinky and unfair deals are OK, as long as nobody gets wise to it. Well the OHVers are now starting to get wise to these stinky deals, like using the delphi tactic on the public, like the particulars of the Riverside deal, the five mile away buffer at Dear Creek up North, and the having the OHV support budget increase at a rate that is 15 times faster than it went up under the previous Wilson administration.

The hope is the new Governor is sincere about improving the California Business climate, including insisting that the people in goverment treat all groups, including OHVers, fairly. As many OHVers as posssible should write letters to the Governor to ask him to invstigate the OHV prgram's business practices. I seriously doubt the poor dealings of the past five years go unchanged and standup to an honest, independent, and thorough business pracitices audit by the Governor's auditors.

The Oldtimer
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 8:26 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by The Oldtimer »

I gotta tell ya, folks....you are doing an outstanding job of providing this kind of info...well done!
Frankie

Member of the ASA

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

Thanks Frankie. Please take the time to send a letter along the lines of Kim's above to the governor if you can and encourage others to do so as well. Let em know we're watching.
Guy Chrest

Image

User avatar
Winston Cup
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:05 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: High Desert

Post by Winston Cup »

The discussion about the new OHV law AB 2666, proposed by the OHMVR, has been broken off into a new topic titled OHMVR Proposes New OHV Law : AB 2666

Thanks for the heads up Red Dog!
Guy Chrest

Image

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

Techincal Audit vs. Business Practices Audit.

Post by Red Dog »

If you ask for an technical audit of the OHV funds you will find the OHV program have technically followed proceedures, with only a few exceptions. If you ask for a business practices audit, you will find they have routinly and blantantly violated priciples of basic fairness and common sense business practices.

For example, the OHV program can produce documentation accounting for the hours they paid the contractors for. What is not justifiable is paying $125, $250, even 300 per hour for that work. What makes paying so much the work unjustified is that State workers would do the work for a much lower cost. Worse - on land deals the OHV program is contracting with organizations whose stated mission is to leverage public funds to buy as much land for preserves as possible. They even brag about this in thier organizational perspectus. The goal for OHV fund use should clearly be to buy as little land for preservation or preserves as possible. A mitigation ratio is the amount of land preserved to the amount of land use of developed.

The people negotiating for airport expansion or for housing developments will insist on 1 to 1 or at most a 1 to 2 mitigation ratio. So it is a blantantly bad and indefensible business practice to pay a contractor $250 per hour to help broker a land deal, when their the express purposed of that contractors ogranization is to leverage public funds to maximize the obtainment of preservation lands.

I do not know why this kind of thing is so hard to understand, or would not be considered totally unacceptable and outragious behavior in conducting the public's business. An independent government business proactices audit is what is needed, sinice this very thing has is still going on right now in your OHV prgram. Why? Do not be stupid, immoral and corrupt peple are using OHV funds to pander for the favor environmental interest.

Instead of doing the right thing of driving a hard but fair bargain, they take the seedy short cut of convincing a few gullible OHV leaders, who ask for few details to bless these awful deals, and in exchange these OHV leaders get put on all the key OHV advisory committees. They shun anyone who would ask hard questions and accept nothing less than honest answers. Instead they offer phoney and stretched justification that you would made an honest man or woman turn in disgust. Integrity needs to again be the most value qaulity in government service. Right now your OHV program is morrally and finantially broke.

Daphie Greene is a business woman, but given that she owes her appointment to the very same people who are engaged in these corrupt dealings, the million dollar quesiton is what will she do about it when she is confronted with all the facts behind these lousy deals?

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

Mitigation Ratios

Post by Red Dog »

When I refered to mitigation ratios for housing developments and aiirport expansions at 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 - what makes what OHV mitigaiton deals so rotton is that the OHVers are paying mitigation ratios of 1 to 8.5 to upwards of 1 to 27. OHV areas have to still preserve the soiils and even have to keep the land usable as wildlife habitat within the OHV use areas. OHV riding areas have to do soil conservation plans, and wildlife habitate mointoring and protection plans. So even though houseing developments and ariport expanision get to pave over aras completely, and landscape with non native plants, like mowed lawns, OHV use areas keep 95 percent plus of the natural habitat in place.

So why in the world would an OHV use area have to provide for a mitigation ratio that is 5 to 20 times higher than for an airport expansion or housing development? The answer is simple, the OHVers have been taken advantage of, played for fools, on OHV land deals by those in charge of the OHV program. I know this, if some guy worked for an airport or housing developer, and they come back to their boses or stockholders with deals on mitigation, like the OHVers have been getting, they would have been fired befor the day was out. The OHV community as a whole, and especially some of our most trusted leaders, should be ashamed, for letting this kind of stuff continue for so long! Just because it looks like the crooks are getting away with it, does not mean it is time to give up, and let corrupt dealings stand.

User avatar
schraderrl
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:42 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by schraderrl »

It’s no secret that the OHMVR has had a two-thirds majority green program for sometime and how can one expect to win anything with those Odds, in power.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

political cover

Post by Red Dog »

It is way more than the eviros getting the majority on the OHV commission, it is the cooperation of those in charge of OHV administration, and the political cover given by some key OHV leaders, that makes this so bad. Once upon a time there would have been a big politcal price to pay for cutting off all green sticker money for maintenance and EMTs for the largest OHV area in the State, the Imperial Dunes, but not lately.

Only some top OHV leaders are getting appointed to certain exclusive and very small OHV administration advisory committees - apparently in exchange for their lending political cover of the OHV program's administration, and the enviros stinky deals. Thus even when the deals stink to high heaven - they say, stink, what stinks, those are a new breed of roses. These old guard OHV leaders may even get a bone tossed to them in the form of one of their pet projects getting funded. They remind me of the Scottish nobles in the movie Bravehart.

The idea of right and wrong, and it is OK to disagree, and ask hard questions needs to make a comeback in the OHV program. The OHV program is in desparate need of reform if it is to remain a valid OHV program that serves the OHV users. Right now the OHV program is morrally and ethically bankrupt.

The Governor does not know this, he still thinks the OHVers liked the Davis bunch, afterall the very top OHV leaders endorsed Davis in the Recall. The OHV Community has produced only a token amount of oppositon to what the eviros have been doing with the OHV program. If Governor Schwarzenegger knew just how underhanded these people are, I believe he would toss them out.

The problem is the OHV community is being politcally neutered by the active efforts of some of their own most trusted leaders, who would rather not admit that they are being played for fools, and are living a lie. These OHV leaders give political cover for some of the most unscupulous enviros to suck the life out of the OHV program.

These key OHV leaders should ask themselves this - is some inside committee appointment really worth it, because what profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul. Some enviros are gullible too, they are not all underhanded. There are also some enviros who are hip, and I believe are also ashamed of the kind of tatics being used to gain advantage over the OHVers in running the OHV program, and I suspect they take some extra showeres at times, just to try to wash the feeling of dirt from themselves.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

What was really so good about the Davis Administration?

Post by Red Dog »

Besides the Hollister Hills expansion, which really only amounted to 50 acres that actually got opened up to riding - what real OHV program gains were made there under the Davis administration? - - Besides the bunch of net gains for environmental interest and concerns. And besides this - Is it not great that we are getting along so well with the enviros stuff. Just what real on the ground accomplishments and improvements were made under the Davis Administration?

Now stack up these so called gains - against the real greatly increased OHV program costs, and the real added OHV program restrictions, and real increased burdens on the OHV program -- and it is clear the Davis Administration was a big net loss for the OHV users. What we got under Davis was back room land deals that favored land preservation interest, and increased laws and regulations on anything that would expand, maintain, or enchance OHV riding opportunities.

Sure some of the new evironmental regulations and laws were good things to do; but just what real consession did the evironmental activist have to make or give up -- not one blessed thing at all, except for handing out a token visitor center maybe, and smiling. Now we hear they are willing to suffer some OHV maintenance, too bad this comes so late in the game, because there is little OHV money left for maintenance of the grant areas, due to having to pay for all the evironmental programs and mitigations that are now built into the OHV budget bv the Davis budget crafters.

I am willing to debate the details of loses and gains, I am open minded. I know there must be some Davis Administration fans out there. So, go ahead and make my day please, I double red dog dare you to.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

Where is the Davis Administration boosters?

Post by Red Dog »

Well none of the Davis Admin. fans have taken the Red Dog Challenge yet.

Could it be that next year there will 6 million dollars less available for OHV grants, due to the 210% OHV support budget increase under the Davis bunch?

Or could it be the every major OHV policy or legal interpretation went the enviros way under Davis OHV administration?

Or could it be the what never happened under previous administrations, happened under the Davis administration, and that is the extreem enviros gained control the OHV commission?

Or could it be because the Davis admin. people said OHVers would no longer stack the OHV Commission and OHV Division, and instead now the enviros stack the OHV Commission and Division - could it be that?

Maybe it is because the Davis people negotiated a mitigation ratio for an OHV park that runs between 8.5 to 27 to 1, which is 5 to 27 times higher than the miitigation ratio for an airport expanisions, or that housing developers have to pay?

Or maybe bailing out an enviro land preservation conservancy opotion deal near Sacramento to the tune of 1.9 million in ohv dollars, and budgeting under 10 million in OHV dollors for this enviro conservancy to by more buffer that does not even border the OHV park, but is five miles away for the OHV park?

Or could it be partnering in a muti million dollar deal with anti OHV access partners who want to buy parcels to stratiegically block OHV access to thousands of acres of public lands near Ridgecrest?

Could it be the Davis administration applied a sophistacated tactic to steer public input, that discouraged the OHV public for even being allowed to disgree, instead they were conned into comming into a "consensus" with the enviros activist, who in the long run mean OHVers only ill, The underhanded DELPHI TECHNIQUE?

Could it be they are paying a consultant $250 per hour, when the Davis OHV administration knew full well that contractor's organization's stated purpose is to maximize the amount of preservation land bought at the public's expense?

Why the silance on the old Davis OHV administration supporters? Oh I know the answer, the Davis administration supporters are resting their case on this -- The eviros love us = they really love us, they even talk to us, and smile at us now, thank you Davis Administration. As for me, I would rather be distained, but not played and ripped of - than treated nice, while being stolen from, and played as a fool.

I do not want the many OHVers who were bambozeled, by the sophisticated and cooridinated efforts of the liberal Democratic Davis administration, and their eviro actiivist allies, to get mad at me, themselves, or other OHVers, who are were never fooled, or who are now wise to the eviros scam.

I want the OHV community to get wise to the fact the the enviros have been pulling off a cunning game on them. I want the OHV Community and Leadership to wake up, and stop keeping being fooled by the same old bunch that has been fooling them for the past five years. I want the OHV leadership to look back with 20 20 hindsight and see if what I say is not sad hard truth and reality about really did happen to the OHVers interest under the Davis administration.

I am issuing the Red Dog Challenge, to help salvage the California OHV program from a small click of unscupulous and cunning enviros, and amoral officials who aid these scoundels, who have played us all for fools for too long. I do not wish them ill, I wish them the opposite, and remind these cunning game players about what is really important, with this old saying. = What profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? The lies and deception in the OHV program needs to end now.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

The restoration fund and the dephi technique

Post by Red Dog »

The underhanded Delphi Technique and coercion was used by the enviros and the Davis administration people to get their hands on 7 million dollars a year in OHV funds to close OHV areas and trials. Some history - prior to the Davis bunch there was no required or dedicated OHV fund for OHV closures. Prior to the Davis gang OHV funds could be used for closures, but there was no set requirement how much OHV funds had to go to OHV closures. There was a conservation and enforcement fund, that was 30% of the OHV fund, prior to Davis people running the OHV show.

Applying the Delphi Technique to steer public stakeholder involvement, and some arm twisting, and some misinformation, by the Davis bunch got the OHV "Stakeholder" to agree to increase the conservation and enforcement account - to 52% of the total OHV gas tax funds funds. But what they did not tell the OHV leaders was that the conservation and enforcement account, under the new formula, really would end up being 62% of the total gas tax funds, double what it was prior to the Davis Administration.

Then the Davis administration got the OHV stakeholder leaders to agree that 1/3 of the 62 percent of the OHV fund gas tax had to go to Restoration, closure of OHV areas and trail, permanent closures. This equates to about 7 million dollar a year.

Buts is gets worse, because the Davis administrator did not explain to the OHV leaders that there is so little land in the State OHV areas to close, that the main hits for closure would have to happen on the Federal Grant funded areas, so OHV closures (Restorations) would eat up 30% to 50% of the entire OHV grant program in the upcomming years. And 90% of all OHV recreation in Californina takes place on grant funded lands.

This enviro pushed "sin" tax was based on the idea that too much of the OHV fund comes from unregistered OHV, thus the OHVers need to pay for this by dedicating a big chunk of the OHV program funds to permanently closing areas and trails to OHVs.

Well the Davis Administration could have simply said - wait till the new gas tax study comes out, and not have pushed to impose this OHV closure funding requirement on the OHVers. The Davis administration could have told the OHV community that they would veto any attempt to screw with the OHVers, if they were truly on the side of us OHVers.

Does anyone think the enviros will give us OHVers a break and give up their OHV closure fund, even when the new gas tax study comes out? Or do you think the enviros will just come up with more ways to screw the OHVers when the new gas tax comes out? After all the main Davis Administration OHV spokesperson in 2001 had this to say about the new gas tax study, before the study was even begun --

"'..... there is a new gas tax study in the works and that the commission will no longer be stacked with OHV enthusiasts. ""

So apparently the Davis administrating decided in advance the new gas tax study would be adverse to the OHVers interest, because they said it would be before the new OHV gas tax study even really started.

Maybe doubling the conservation and enforcement account and the mandating 7 million dollars a year permanent OHV closure fund, and an unfavorable gas tax study, is why the Davis OHV Administration fans still have not taken up the Red Dog Challenge.

Please you Davis OHV Administration lovers, please explain in real substantive terms, why the Davis OHV administration was so great. Please explain what great things the Davis OHV administration really accomplished that outweighs the overwhelming amount of disadvantage, and harm, they did to the OHV Community's interest - in terms of spending decisions, policies, regulations, and laws in just five short years? I double Red Dog dare you to again.

Jerry Seaver
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
ASA Co-Founder • Past President
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 4:48 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by Jerry Seaver »

Well Red Dog, you seem to know what your talking about and you seem to know more details than I've ever heard before. Your details do connect a lot of the dots. There's so much information here it's overwhelming. I'm curious what your opinion would be in a list of priority, most important first, of what needs to happen towards fixing some of the problems that you have stated in your posts. Also a list of what the worst problems are, worst first. It sounds like what the OHMVR Commission is doing, is legal?? So are the solutions primarily political? Thanks

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

In California there is no law, only politics.

Post by Red Dog »

The first thing the OHV Community needs to do is understand the political process. The Governor relies on the people below him to tell him what is going on. If those people are the ones who played you in the first place, do not go back to them and expect they will treat you any differently. The OHV leaders, those who are no longer beguiled by the enviros and thier lower level administration allies, need to go over their heads. You need to ask for a face to face with the Governor's Finance Director to lay out all the fiscal crud that went on - like the 210% budget increase, the flaky 27 million dollar overpriced toxic filled Riverside OHV Project, the 11.9 million tied up for buffer land not even next to the OHV park five miles away. It is the budget issue now that crosses party lines wasteful spending is indefensible given the current budget deficit situation. This is the our unscupulous eviros weak spot.

Remember it was the enviros who made fiscal responsibility the big issue, with ““In the money and Out of Control” the fabricated hitpiece calling for decimating reforms to the OHV program, so they could take control of the OHV program. But what did they do, when they got control, they spent the OHV funds like they were going out of style on indefensibly unsound projects, and increased the OHV support budget at the rate 15 times faster that it have ever increased before.

These are not just a group of eviros who love spending other peoples money, they were very immoral in the way they obtained and used their power over the OHV program. Governor Schwartzenegger is open to enviro wackos, some his friends and even his inlaws are amongst the top enviro wacko food chain, but he hates dishonesty and fiscal irresponsibility. It is the budget -----, I wont say it.

A group of OHV leaders and OHV business people need to insist on a face to face audience with the Governors Finance Director ASAP and raise heck over the gross fiscal irresponsibly of the OHV program under the eviro run regime. That OHV program is out of money and under the thumb of the eviros. Kick the bums out by using truth of their ineptitude and dishonesty against them. Believe it or not, there are some people with integrity, so even the Democratic allies of these cruds will destain them, when they see just the details of their works. They took the easy route of deceitfulness to gain advantage, and they will lose their power when the honest truth comes out.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

The Red Dog Challenge

Post by Red Dog »

Well TomJeep2 says has heard the Red Dog Challenge, and issued his own challenge to let Steve Khuel set the record strait on OHV issues. I have not seen any substantive answers or counters to the Red Dog challnege yet. I thiink the Davis OHV administration lovers have no good answers to give, only slogans and platitudes. Put up or shut up, I say the Davis Admin. bunch are all flash - all they did was encouraged enviro hugging, and the changes they made were favorable to the enviros, but did little good and were mostly bad for us OHVers.

The OHV "leaders" who encouraged the us OHVer to "Stay the (Davis) Course" got rewarded by a Davis appointment. or put on little special little screw the OHVer Division Committees with the likes of Schambach and Spitler, and they helped to keep the enviro favoring bunch in positions to steer the OHV program's direction, down to the most detailed level. So here is the Red Dog Challenge again. _

"Besides the Hollister Hills expansion, which really only amounted to 50 acres that actually got opened up to riding - what real OHV program gains were made there under the Davis administration? - - Besides the bunch of net gains for environmental interest and concerns. And besides this - Is it not great that we are getting along so well with the enviros stuff. Just what real on the ground accomplishments and improvements were made under the Davis Administration?

Now stack up these so called gains - against the real greatly increased OHV program costs, and the real added OHV program restrictions, and real increased burdens on the OHV program -- and it is clear the Davis Administration was a big net loss for the OHV users. What we got under Davis was back room land deals that favored land preservation interest, and increased laws and regulations on anything that would expand, maintain, or enchance OHV riding opportunities.

Sure some of the new evironmental regulations and laws were good things to do; but just what real consession did the evironmental activist have to make or give up -- not one blessed thing at all, except for handing out a token visitor center maybe, and smiling. Now we hear they are willing to suffer some OHV maintenance, too bad this comes so late in the game, because there is little OHV money left for maintenance of the grant areas, due to having to pay for all the evironmental programs and mitigations that are now built into the OHV budget by the Davis budget crafters.

I am willing to debate the details of loses and gains, I am open minded. I know there must be some Davis Administration fans out there. So, go ahead and make my day please, I double red dog dare you to."

Now Daphie Greene was a Davis appointee too, and the Davis bunch backed her appointement to head the OHV program. I say give her a chance, but if she does not do something about the poor dealings that have gone on, and she lets unfair and unfavorable OHV policies keep being made, then she is not worthy of our continued trust.

Red Dog
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:45 am

The Red Dog Challenge

Post by Red Dog »

It is sure hard to figure out what real substantive gains were made for OHVers by the Davis bunch. Now well aw we got a new park in Riverside. No you have not, and that is even after being make to pay way more for it than any decent person would dream of asking you to pay for it. Well we got all these new laws and reguations. Yes, but what in these new laws and regulations ended up being more favorable to OHVers? Well aw, then what about the fact that enviros now hug us and smile at us at meetings? Well I would smile and hug you too if you handed me the keys to your safe and control over all your OHV programs.

User avatar
tomjeeps2
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:20 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Outer Rim Territory's, Wild Space
Contact:

Post by tomjeeps2 »

I started to reconstruct my OHMVR archive, just in-case anyone cares...TJ

http://www.quietbike.org/OHMVR/
The Country is ran by the few that show up.
They are lead by the even fewer that step up.

http://WWW.TEAMSTEALTH.ORG Noise issue information.
http://WWW.OHMVR.COM Total Off Road Recreation!

Tom Tammone

User avatar
tomjeeps2
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:20 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Outer Rim Territory's, Wild Space
Contact:

OHV IN Y2K: OPEN OR CLOSED? THE CHOICE IS OURS??????????????

Post by tomjeeps2 »

OHV IN Y2K: OPEN OR CLOSED? THE CHOICE IS OURS

David L. Widell

Time: 1976
Place: Somewhere in the Southern California Desert

A group of young riders make their way from their suburban homes, bikes in the back of a pickup, and head for a short trip to the wide expanse of Southern California's desert. A quick jump from the state highway to county roads places the group in a landscape reminiscent of a set from Planet of the Apes. But it's not movie magic. It's real and it's the California desert: dry, quiet, unassuming, enormous. Bikes out, gear on, see ya!

As difficult as it is for some to comprehend, these riders are on a quest for peace and solitude. The world is theirs and, better yet, no one is around and no one seems to care about what they do or where they go. No signs, no fences, empty. California's population is one-half the size it is now, the Eagles released Hotel California, the Vietnam War is recently over, the Endangered Species Act is in its infancy. Life is good.

What happened?
Time: 2000
Place: Somewhere in the Southern California Desert

Southern California has ballooned to some 20 million people and is still giving birth. What once were agricultural fields have been replaced by subdivisions and strip malls. Creeping development within rural areas has begun to place riders in conflict with homeowners. Implementation of the Desert Protection Act is in full swing. Expansion of wilderness designations has placed millions of acres of historic OHV riding areas "off limits". Turtles, lizards, Sierra Club and NIMBY's are at increasing odds with what these kids want to do most: RIDE. It's not so easy anymore. Green Stickers, Red Stickers, spark arresters, cops, fences, more closed areas, less hill climbs, bad press. Life's not so good.

Now what?
Today, in a rapidly urbanizing state, many people have an interest in OHV activity beyond the traditional enthusiast. The culture of the sport has changed and, to the dismay of many, a growing population has caught up to what once was isolated to remote regions of the Southern California desert or Sierras and enjoyed by relatively few bikers and 4-wheel drive owners. Today, snowmobiles, a diversity of trail bike riders, an exponentially expanding sport utility vehicle community, dune buggies and ATV's share the sport.

In other words, the sport has grown and the State, in terms of elbowroom, has shrunk. It's a tough situation for a sport that requires a lot of space and prefers few neighbors.

Are OHV enthusiasts then destined to become the next endangered species?

Not if we including the OHV community, the environmental and law enforcement communities and others, recognize two indisputable facts and take a course of action based on those facts: First, OHV recreation is not going away anytime soon. In fact, the sport is growing and as more people look to shed modern life's trappings of long hours and long commutes, it is likely more people are going to be looking to recreate in one form or another on public lands. The second fact is that the way OHV opportunity has been managed, and at times unmanaged, must be improved.

From these two realities I believe that we can find common ground and return to the original intent of the OHV program. And that is to provide managed OHV opportunity for the benefit of the public and the environment. That is good for the OHV community, good for the environment and good for California.

As we prepare for the OHV program's legislative reauthorization in 2003, there will be many things that will be initiated by the OHV Division. It will be a different way of doing things than in the past. Greater accountability, increased sensitivity to the environment, better planning, an expanded law enforcement presence where needed, and better coordination and outreach with all OHV stakeholders are just a few of the action items that we have already begun to work diligently toward.

In no way does this mean that the Davis Administration will be abandoning our OHV community. Rather, we will be providing the kind of leadership that will be essential if OHV opportunity is going to continue to be enjoyed by millions of Californians.

There are a couple of things the OHV and environmental communities can do to help:

First, the OHV community must recognize that the very activity they enjoy and fund is in serious peril. Rather than living, and dying, on the political sword, the OHV community must become more organized, more inclusive and more sophisticated if it intends to maintain a whole and healthy future that is less susceptible to shifting political sands. OHV critics neither understand nor care about the differences within your ranks. You therefore must develop methods, where you can effectively speak with one voice, recognize where you have made mistakes and take the initiative to fix those mistakes. This may not always be easy, but considering the challenges you face and the rate at which they are arising, it is absolutely critical that you do so.

Second, the environmental community must be realistic. Certainly, changes are in order and there is no doubt that some changes will be made.

Nonetheless, those in the environmental community who simply dislike the culture associated with OHV recreation, or have a larger agenda seeking to decrease program funding while cutting off public access to historic OHV areas are, quite frankly, denying both reality and the popularity of the sport.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to visit the Imperial Sand Dunes of Southern California where I got to see first hand, in the same place, why the sport exists and why many are concerned about it. I also recognized that any attempt to shut down a form of recreation associated with millions of city dwellers looking to break out of their urban jungle would be both unsuccessful and more environmentally damaging. The fact is those same people would continue to look for somewhere else to go if these areas were off-limits.

Management, not denial, is the answer.
I urge the environmental community to carefully consider its end game and not inadvertently, and ironically, further hurt the environment through a well-intentioned but perhaps shortsighted effort to protect it.

Change takes time. Pent up frustrations which lead to knee jerk reactions do nothing to effect meaningful and lasting long-term change. Be open to building personal and individual dialogue with members of the OHV community to better understand why they are passionate about what they do. You may not understand what they do, or why they do it, but that passion is no different than the passion you maintain for things that are wild and open and green.

Discover ways where you can work together to achieve the very thing that both communities desire the most -- the preservation of wide open spaces from the wave of urban sprawl for the benefit of wildlife and the enjoyment of people. Such a cooperative effort is possible, but only if both groups allow it to be so.

The Davis Administration fully supports responsibly managed OHV opportunity in California, and recognizes that some four million people in this state have chosen some form of OHV activity as their recreational outlet and contribute more than $3 billion to California's economy. That is reality.

We must begin the very challenging task of developing a new and improved OHV program that maintains its roots, yet is more responsive to the concerns of a population that is rapidly expanding into California's remaining nooks and crannies.

The very program which provides the managed OHV opportunity we enjoy will be comprehensively reconsidered by the State Legislature beginning next year. This is the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, identify what works and what doesn't in an era much different from that in which the original program was crafted. It will also provide an opportunity to develop consensus among diverse constituencies despite whatever side of the issue they may be on.

But, that opportunity will be missed if propaganda and personal conflicts among individuals and groups overly distract us.

I challenge everyone interested in OHV to focus on our collective priority to ensure that the OHV Division remains solvent and secure in order that we may provide well-managed OHV opportunity AND, at the same time, protect the environment from the unmitigated disaster that would ensue if the fund were to cease to exist.

That opportunity is ours, and it is now. All of us must work together in order that we not squander it.
The Country is ran by the few that show up.
They are lead by the even fewer that step up.

http://WWW.TEAMSTEALTH.ORG Noise issue information.
http://WWW.OHMVR.COM Total Off Road Recreation!

Tom Tammone

User avatar
tomjeeps2
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:20 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Outer Rim Territory's, Wild Space
Contact:

Post by tomjeeps2 »

No Greene didn't start this stuff nor did Widell, the believe was that if we showed good stewardship we would get along with the greens. The problem is that's apparently not what they want, what they want is for us to just go away, their agenda continues to be to shut us down. I'm tempted to say just let it happen, the riding wont stop only the managed riding will, let them deal with real unmanaged lawlessness for a few years. Perhaps then they'll understand were not the bad guys, and be begging us to apply for grants to manage the sport, they think I'm an anarchist well let them discover the real meaning of the word...TJ ](*,)
The Country is ran by the few that show up.
They are lead by the even fewer that step up.

http://WWW.TEAMSTEALTH.ORG Noise issue information.
http://WWW.OHMVR.COM Total Off Road Recreation!

Tom Tammone

Locked

Return to “Ca. O.H.M.V.R. / Green Sticker Fund”