Home
Basic Dirt Bike How-To's - Video
Dirt Bike How-To's - Video
Living The Moto Life - Video
Bike Tests | Shoot-Outs - Video
Forums
What's new
Latest activity
Log-In
Join
What's new
Menu
Log-In
Join
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Close Menu
Forums
Other Dirt Bike Discussions
Who to Ride With, Where to Ride
By Region
Western USA
Here's your chance to let Seattle know the truth
Reply to thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
[QUOTE="bbbom, post: 542983, member: 16301"] I sounded off: ================================================= It seems that the following misstatement of fact is being tossed around repeatedly in regards to the battle over NOVA funding: Motorized users now get 80 percent of tax money earmarked for "Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities"; 20 percent is available for hikers, horseback riders and mountain bikers. In reality, non-motorized users actually receive 100% of the NOVA funding. Hikers have, at their disposal, every recreational trail and facility in existence in the state of Washington. Mountain bikers and horseback riders are prohibited from the trails that are hiking only. Dirtbikes and snowmobiles are prohibited from trails that are deemed non-motorized, ATV's are prohibited from singletrack type trails and finally, 4x4's are prohibited from the narrower dualtrack trails. There is absolutely NOTHING that prohibits non-motorized uses on motorized trails, except personal choice. I have met many non-motorized users on motorized trails and there has been no problem with the multiple use of the facility. In fact my family and I are quite often non-motorized users of motorized trails. Therefore, I would say that a more accurate statement would be: Non-Motorized users now get 100 percent of tax money earmarked for "Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities"; 20 percent of which, is available for the exclusive use of non-motorized users. I would also like to point out that NOVA stands for "Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities" it's very name implies that the funding was established to benefit Motorized activities. If you look at the history of the legislation establishing the fund, you will see the intent was to create opportunities for the growing number of Off-Road Vehicle enthusiasts to legally and responsibly recreate on our public lands. There have been and still are numerous funding sources for non-motorized recreation via Federal, State, County and even local municipal programs. Such funding is rare when it comes to motorized recreation. The voters of Washington voluntarily relinquished their rights to a refund of the gas tax dollars generated in their Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle activities in exchange for a funding program that was supposed to develop opportunities for the very activities that generated the funds. Both motorized and non-motorized activities usually generate Non-Highway gas taxes when traveling to the recreational facilities. Once at the trailhead though, the generation of "gas tax dollars" for non-motorized activities is over. The motorized recreation is certainly generating additional "gas tax" funds. It is interesting to note that the original 1973 study determined that 4.6% of the gas tax was generated by Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities. The fund was capped at 1% and most of that funding has little to do with actually creating Off-Road Vehicle recreational opportunities. Everywhere you look you see the statement that Off-Road Vehicle sales are exploding. It only stands to reason that the percentage of gas tax generated by these users has also increased since 1973 yet, the funding levels have never increased. In fact the funding level has never represented the actual amount that the original study found to be generated by eligible activities. Now the lawmakers present HB1698 which, if passed will waste more of the limited funds for additional studies. What good will additional studies do? There are no provisions for adjusting the NOVA funding based upon the studies. Shouldn’t there be a provision that would require the funding to represent the percentage of gas tax generated by the group that generated it? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which ocean is California closest to?
Post reply
Forums
Other Dirt Bike Discussions
Who to Ride With, Where to Ride
By Region
Western USA
Here's your chance to let Seattle know the truth
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Bottom