Elbe on the chopping block?

[ain'tstuckjustresting]

Ha, that's funny Brad. What time did you recieve that? I got the exact same response and it was signed by Mark Mauren. He sent a copy to Doug and I think Doug just put his name on it and started sending it around.

Hi Chad

Thank you for communicating your concerns regarding recreation
opportunities in the Elbe State. These are difficult times and all state
programs, including DNR's recreation program, are facing an uncertain
future due to the current budget crisis.

DNR has made no decisions regarding recreation site closures, nor will
decisions be made until after the legislature and Governor have approved
the 2011-2013 budget this spring. We are working toward a budget that
can avoid cuts.

The Governor has proposed to zero out funding for recreation programs.
As Heath mentioned in his e-mail the DNR is working with the Governor,
other state agencies and the legislature on a recreation pass proposal
that will provide sustainable funding for recreational opportunities on
state lands.

One of the primary reasons DNR recreation sites are as good as they are,
is the countless hours you and volunteers spend assisting our staff to
improve and maintain them. We rely upon this valuable partnership to
help us enhance the public's recreational opportunities. We would also
not been able to get as far as we have in the development of Reiter
without the support of the ORV community throughout the planning and
design process.

Again, and to be clear, DNR has made no decision to close specific
recreation areas.

I encourage you to remain engaged in the process during this legislative
session. If you would like to subscribe to the Recreation E-News to
receive regular updates from the Recreation Program, please send an
email to recreationenews@dnr.wa.gov and put "Subscribe" in the subject
line.

Thank you for your concern and support for recreation on DNR-managed
lands. Should you have additional questions or comments, please contact
Doug McClelland, South Puget Sound Assistant Region Manager at
douglas.mcclelland@dnr.wa.gov or at 206-920-5907.

Take care

Mark

Mark R. Mauren
Assistant Division Manager
Recreation, Public Access and WCC Programs
Asset Management and Recreation Division
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
(360) 902-1047
mark.mauren@dnr.wa.gov

 

[japerry]

Rick,

I believe everything that DNR has said in these letters. The Key thing here is that when the budget is released; and if it doesn't include some type of specific funds for recreation, all bets are off.

Which basically means we wait about 105 days. (April-May time) We will know what, if anything, gets closed. If its like the previous closures, they will take effect July 1st.

 

[mark]

Problem is your thinking like a user(logicly) and not a government agency(idiocracy).

I know, silly me.

I see what your saying and you like me we remeber the days when there really were "trails" not large areas to use.

But when you look at it from another standpoint what about the user who likes to load the camper and go for a weekend with there trailered rig? Is a "trail" going to do it?

I considered Reiter a series of "trails", not so much an area. And like you I was "local enough" to consider it a day-trip at best. But still many folks can up and 'camped' for the weekend. But they didn't need improved camping areas. A big, open area like the powerlines was perfectly sufficient. Sure, not ideal, but then that might also have acted like a gate-keeper in keeping the number of "campers" to a minimum.

If I'm going to head out and "camp/wheel", I head over to Naches or similar. I don't know if I'd even consider Elbe a "camping" destination. Maybe cause its not *that* far away. Don't get me wrong, I sure don't mind shitters, but like I said, they are not *required* to make an ORV area. Neither is a nut-smooth parking area, benches etc. Again, Reiter is a perfect example, no "improvements" but became too popular for its own good. But I still don't remember sanitation being an issue (might have been, but I didn't notice)

 

[ain'tstuckjustresting]

New Years was the 1st time I've ever camped in the campground at Elbe. I camp most of the time I go there but just chill out on the side of the road. Not having a campground there wouldn't bother me a bit.

 

[Binder]

I believe everything that DNR has said in these letters.

It's not a matter of disbelief it's a matter of accountability. If/ when **** goes sideways there's nobody in the DNR office who will jump up and claim decisions. We need to know who we could potentialy be for or against within the agency.....Anyways it's good news for what it's worth.:cheer:

 

[japerry]

It's not a matter of disbelief it's a matter of accountability. If/ when **** goes sideways there's nobody in the DNR office who will jump up and claim decisions. We need to know who we could potentialy be for or against within the agency.....Anyways it's good news for what it's worth.:cheer:

oh yes. I can tell you exactly who it will be. Mark Mauren and ultimately the commissioner (although he will probably just approve whatever Mark decides). Mark will get input from the regional managers, who will provide data on usage, cost to operate, etc.

When talking to Mark and other DNR employees, I've been told closures will be done from a budget standpoint, just like before. Facilities with the highest cost-to-attendance ratios (except for some very popular places, maybe.. although Mt. Si almost closed last time) will be the first to be targeted for closure. There shouldn't be any bias for or against any rec-group. And whatever decisions they make will be difficult, painful, and full of negative consequences.

Assuming the data collected at a regional level is factual, I don't think there is anyone we can blame except ourselves, our legislature, and the reality of recession. We as citizens decided that we would take cuts in government instead of raising taxes in November (Disclosure: I voted to cut taxes). We're now facing those consequences. While I think NOVA should be restored, and would probably stop these final cuts, it did not fully fund the recreation program around the state. Despite republicans being more friendly to ORV interests, they are also for cutting out 'fat'. Many believe state parks and recreation is 'fat' in a recession.

Motorized Recreation is a very small voice in a large stadium of people wanting a piece of the state budget pie. We not only compete against other user groups, but heath, education, crime, transportation groups, etc, etc. Which means that when the state is doing bad, we're probably one of the first things to be cut. When the state is doing good, we're going to get help.

 

[ain'tstuckjustresting]

Rick, do you know who Marks boss is? His title is "assistant division manager"
I need a email address to blow up.

 

[Ty.]

Rick, do you know who Marks boss is? His title is "assistant division manager"
I need a email address to blow up.

Is he on here?http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ContactDNR/EmployeeDirectory/Pages/Home.aspx

 

[Binder]

Rick, do you know who Marks boss is? His title is "assistant division manager"
I need a email address to blow up.

I don't know for sure but I'm under the impression that Mark answers to Peter Goldmark who is the commissioner of public lands...Many people at DNR have the title of "assistant division manager" so it's hard to tell who's who. Marks department is "Asset & Property Management ".
Maybe someone who knows for sure can chime in?...

 

[Binder]

Motorized Recreation is a very small voice in a large stadium of people wanting a piece of the state budget pie. We not only compete against other user groups, but heath, education, crime, transportation groups, etc, etc. Which means that when the state is doing bad, we're probably one of the first things to be cut. When the state is doing good, we're going to get help.

I understand all of this and I believe the end result is "we're fukt"......When the smoke clears there will probably be many changes in departments and personel. At that point we will still have a uphill battle left ahead of us and it will be useful to know who really did try to help us out and who just blew a smoke screen up our collective asses.:;

 

[Money Mark]

oh yes.....

Great perspective. I agree. It's the truth. :awesomework:

 

[Travis1]

We as citizens decided that we would take cuts in government instead of raising taxes in November (Disclosure: I voted to cut taxes).

Even if that passed, I really doubt that would have changed anything for us and the DNR. They would have grown government again, and still had to make cuts.

Now, had the legislators not ran out and spent like a teenage girl with daddy's credit card during the good years, the bad years wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Gibby1]

The reality is, that if government has to decrease spending, which it should, it should be reducing non-essential services and get back to doing what a government should do.

To the state as a whole would benefit more from road improvement projects, education reform, better flood prevention strategies and other general public expenditures, than it would from keeping an ORV park or two open.

Thinkgs like this are obviously on the chopping block, BUT as part of a transition process, government COULD negotiate continued recreation use to potential private or operators.

I could see a possibility of private management of a place like Elbe. The forest management is the same, trust funds etc., but a private party could take over maintenance and management of the park and facilities. Think about it. Privatize the use of the park, but keep it on public lands. A private party takes over management and is responsibile for collecting fees, trail maintenance and improvement, enforcement etc. An org like the PNW4WDA comes to mind. It is possible to operate a park like Elbe if you don't have to pay for the land. It's impossible if you have to pay for the land.

It'd be a little complex on the enforcement since you'd have to have a legal authority give out tickets etc but I think this has a viable options. It'd be a great project for a retired businessman who's an avid wheeler. You'd have to have a passion for it, the time to do it, and the knowledge to make it work.

Just throwing an idea out there.

 

[zukkev]

This has been brought up before Gibby (only in a little different text), and I agree, but there would have to be some sort of 'lease' agreement, and I am all but positive there will have to be some sort of monetary compensation agreement in the 'lease'...but still, not a bad idea. I am sure there will be someone with more exp in something like this than I who could pop in. :awesomework::awesomework:

 

[Binder]

The reality is, that if government has to decrease spending, which it should, it should be reducing non-essential services and get back to doing what a government should do.
To the state as a whole would benefit more from road improvement projects, education reform, better flood prevention strategies and other general public expenditures, than it would from keeping an ORV park or two open..

Yes but there is a difference between cutting back spending and just closing the parks. If the private sector is capable of running one of these parks at a profit then why can't the gov?
How long did Reiter operate with absolutely no supervision at all?

Things like this are obviously on the chopping block, BUT as part of a transition process, government COULD negotiate continued recreation use to potential private or operators.

I could see a possibility of private management of a place like Elbe. The forest management is the same, trust funds etc., but a private party could take over maintenance and management of the park and facilities. Think about it. Privatize the use of the park, but keep it on public lands. .

Again if private citizens can make a profit then why not the gov?......Straddeline is trying to do something like this right now. They want someone to lease it and run it as an ORV park. It's a perfect opportunity for anyone to show how it's done.

It'd be a little complex on the enforcement Just throwing an idea out there.

Enforcement should be essentially the same as if it were private land. A private person or ORG would lease the land and be responsible for it. If someone were damaging the land the lessee is going to have to answer for the damage. It's up to the lessee to collect damages through the courts and there could be security guards (paid and/ or volunteer) to patrol things. Call the cops and have people removed for trespassing if need be. Arrested for vandalism?:corn:

All good ideas Dale.:awesomework:

 

[Gibby1]

This has been brought up before Gibby (only in a little different text), and I agree, but there would have to be some sort of 'lease' agreement, and I am all but positive there will have to be some sort of monetary compensation agreement in the 'lease'...but still, not a bad idea. I am sure there will be someone with more exp in something like this than I who could pop in. :awesomework::awesomework:

A lease AGREEMENT yes, but it could be $1.

I have already sent a draft of this proposal to the DNR for some dialogue.

I am quite confident that we can get some budget money from off road manufacturers, even someone like CRAWL might be interested in reaching out to their base. Annual dues may be steep and the volunteer requirements still substantial as it would be the only way to make it feasible. I do not see this working as a for profit venture, but as a break even venture for a non-profit org, I can see it working.

This could actually be a great project for CRAWL to put their name behind.
CRAWL ORV Park at Elbe Hills Washington...

It could also be a great task for either WOW or the PNW4WDA to tackle.

It is a viable, and sustainable, long term funding option which is exactly what the DNR needs.

We've gone over the privatization of parks numerous times and the same conclusion always comes up. Anywhere close enough to be desireable is simply too expensive to be practical. This might not be.

 

[zukkev]

A lease AGREEMENT yes, but it could be $1.

I have already sent a draft of this proposal to the DNR for some dialogue.

I am quite confident that we can get some budget money from off road manufacturers, even someone like CRAWL might be interested in reaching out to their base. Annual dues may be steep and the volunteer requirements still substantial as it would be the only way to make it feasible. I do not see this working as a for profit venture, but as a break even venture for a non-profit org, I can see it working.

This could actually be a great project for CRAWL to put their name behind.
CRAWL ORV Park at Elbe Hills Washington...

It could also be a great task for either WOW or the PNW4WDA to tackle.

It is a viable, and sustainable, long term funding option which is exactly what the DNR needs.

We've gone over the privatization of parks numerous times and the same conclusion always comes up. Anywhere close enough to be desireable is simply too expensive to be practical. This might not be.

Sure, it could be only $1....but I doubt that would be the case if something came about...But still, I agree it's a good opportunity for someone/some group/organization to step up.:awesomework:

 

[dirtygoat]

What about hunters, fern pickers and such???

What about being responsible for the timber???

Restrictions or lack of???

DNR doesn't own the land... I don't see the timber side of the DNR going along with this at all...

Just some questions that popped in my mind while reading this...

 

[Gibby1]

What about hunters, fern pickers and such???

What about being responsible for the timber???

Restrictions or lack of???

DNR doesn't own the land... I don't see the timber side of the DNR going along with this at all...

Just some questions that popped in my mind while reading this...

It only would involve the actual trails and campground, not the rest of the forest. For example, the campground could be gated and maintained. Campground host type of situation. Hours of operation managed, perhaps only open on weekends (Friday through Sunday) during the off season for example. Permission could be granted to block off the 9 road at the campground with a gate, giving access to the logging companies but keeping the partiers and dumpers OUT. A pass would be required to enter during the hours of operation. Hunters aren't allowed in the ORV area anyway. People on foot picking ferns or berries, who cares? They can walk in, they aren't typically a problem.
The timber side wouldn't be affected other than perhaps needing to open a gate to get through. With a little co-operation a gate could have a remote control access for them. It would probably save their areas from looting and dumping as well. Otherwise there would be no impact.
I big expense potential is as always, vandalism. It would required a camera monitored gate to catch and charge violators. That can all be done and that's where a commercial sponser would come in. Someone like Skyjacker, or Warn could install and maintain the gate.
We have a card operated gate at the private park beside us and the fire department has an emergency override key. Other than some idiot driving through it, it works quite well and could run solar powered. We have similar blockades for the Allen York boat ramp. The are concrete posts that come up through the ground. You have to pay your fee or swipe your card or the posts don't come down. Better than a gate because you can't run over the posts but more expensive to install. Again, this could all be solar powered. No access during closed hours and controlled access during open hours.
The reason for suggesting reduced operation is simply for cost management. If I was running an operation like this, I would NOT want anyone in there unless there was someone watching over the place. Guaranteed someone would stand there with his card and let all his buddies in for free, or find some other way to cheat.
A camera monitoring system would also be fairly easy to install. It's the initial investment costs that's prohibitive for some of this. But I think a sponsor could be found. I believe that the day to day operations could be done to break even and perhaps make enough money to continue improving facilities and trails.
ATV and motorcycle communities have done a very good job and getting their commercial sponsors to buck up in the past. It could be possible to expand or improve usage for these group to garner their support.
Campground hosting could certainly be volunteer, similar to what is done at Evan's Creek, but better managed. The campground could be open whenever a host is present.
Just tossing more ideas around. I really see this as a viable option and I appreciate tossing around ideas and problems. I am hoping that the DNR will open a dialogue about this possibility. It is outside the box for them.
I'm just popping off questions and ideas as well.

 

[CHOP SHOP]

Im not interested AT ALL in an "Elbe Country club".

:booo: