increase registration fees on snowmobiles

[theultrarider]

I was unaware of groomed trails in anchorage... that is awesome, i would love to ride them. I live in midtown, where can i find these groomed trails!?!?! 95% of my riding is done at turnagain, placer, and lost lakes... never once have I seen a groomer. I ride Eureka the other 5%... from my buddies cabin near gunsight, again, i have never seen a groomer. Where are all these magical groomed trails!? Truthfully, who gives a shìt... i hate trails. Lets use that money for lawyers(or however this is done, if its even possible) to open/re-open trails/areas that are closed to non-motorized use. I would even be open to the idea of paying off someone with ties to the forest service/lawmakers. I thought this was a country based off of equal opportunity, non-motorized people use motorized areas... WTF!?

Trail grant monies are to be used for things such as you are suggesting. It is not just for "grooming". Here on the Kenai, the caribou hills cabin hoppers have used alot of this money to invest in the legal end of getting all of our long time, old time trails reconized ''legally" and made into "offical" trails that we can use for years to come to access the back country. Getting the legal rights of ways across the lands of all the various owners of the properties that these trails cross. This is a much harder task than it sounds, and takes many many hours of time and alot of money. We have lost several of our trails over the years. The trails are still there, they just don't get any maintaince at all since we have no legal right to do so. All it takes is one property owner along the length of the trail to say no, and there goes the entire trail. I am not a trail rider either, but let me ask you this, How do you get to Lost Lake without a trail up there? We must fight to keep what trails we do have. Registering your sleds is the first big step. 2nd is to take the time out of your busy lifes to attend the meetings as they come up. Like the ones coming up soon for the hatchers area.....Stand up and be counted guys, numbers matter.

 

[theultrarider]

Yes i am a firm believer that my dollars are better used by me than by govt. These dollars collected for ORV registartion, and fuel tax, are they completly spent on trails for ORV or better yet parking lots, restrooms? Its not like our crowd are the only ones that take advantage of these facilities and trails. Time for Non Motorized Users to feel a little of the wallet sting like Motorized users!

You would be suprised just how much of the orv fuel tax money does come back to clubs and the things that you and I actually do want. Get involved in a club, and you may be suprised to find out just how much money does come back down our way. You may not always agree with the club presidents and how THEY choose to spend the monies, but that is a different arguement. It takes alot of volunteer time to make this all happen. Stand up and get involved.

 

[mit]

I don't believe there is any fuel tax going to snowmachine use.

 

[kev_alaska]

Replies

If everyone spent as much time working on our sport as they spend giving bad information here, we would be a lot better off.

Where to start? First things first. No one has submitted any type of proposal to anyone in Juneau concerning raising registration fees yet. We have had verbal discussions with some legislators, but that is far from a introduction of a bill. This discussion has been ongoing for nearly two years both in the Anchorage area as well as the areas represented by the regional board of directors. The SnoTrac board is also made up of representives from around the state (Anchorage, Mat-Su, Fairbanks, Kenai, Kotzebue etc) and they have endorsed a proposal as well. Each of the 1200 or so persons recieving the newsletter (or picked up one free from his dealer) should have also been aware this discussion was ongoing.

There is no legislative or legal limit to the amount of funds re-appropriated back to the DNR/SnoTrac process for snowmobile trail system funding. The current $200K is what was originally appropriated the first year of the project and has continued to be appropriated. The first couple years the amount collected by DMV was substantially lower than that. The last few years it has been higher. The process for requesting the additional funds is that the Director of State Parks requests that the DMV provide the $ number and he asks the legislature for that amount in his yearly budget. With the turnover at DNR in the past few years, that process did not happen. So the legislature just let the appropriation ride at the nominal level.

Rest assured that prior to any submission of any bill, the ASSA, DNR and SnoTrac will have legislative agreement to reallocate the correct funds back to the Trail grant program. In the discussion phase is also a sunset clause that could be used to end the project if the goals are not met. The SnoTrac program is the program that sets guidelines and funds both grants as well as the grooming pool. The SnoTrac grants have certain requirements that are not always met by the applicants. Money left over from the grant requests (things like safety, signage, trail access and marking projects) is then placed into the grooming pool. The Grooming pool is allocated to areas dependent on the level of useage and size of the trail systems in that area. Local clubs, lodges and individuals are eligible for these programs.

You are absolutely correct in the position that the Mat-Su and the Kenai benefit most from the program. They have far and away the most registrations and therefore the most applicants for the programs. If you don't see these funds in your area, it may help to ask your local club or groomer what you can do to help raise the visibility level so those funds can be allocated to your area.

SnoTrac is the state registration program. As noted, it provides approximately $200K per year for programs. The gas tax program is called ORTAB. It is the federal program that allocates the gas taxes back to the states to fund motorized, non-motorized and combined projects. I do not have the ORTAB funding level memorized,(the DNR home page lists over $750,000.00) but it dwarfs the SOA amounts. http://www.alaskastatetrails.org/

As mentioned in other threads, I am more than happy to sit and discuss any of the ongoing items we have on the burner. The more input I and the board have, the better we are at advocacy. Just please get the facts before hammering on somone. I am the public contact for the organization and as such, feel free to call or e-mail me with any questions.

kevin hite
ASSA

 

[mit]

Ok so show me where a dollar of the gas tax goes to Alaska snowmachines?

Facts are you are not representing everyone. Fact is that this tax needs to be abolished and Trail head fees instituted, for those trails that get the use will then get the money and the user's that use them will be paying for them. If they don't generate enough money to sustain themselves let em go.

Fact is like all Government functions this program does more to grow government than protect or maintain trails.

Get rid of it!

 

[kev_alaska]

Never said I represented everyone. I represent those that are involved in the organization and promotion of the sport.

Click on the link above and do some research on the Recreational trails program and ORTAB. Thousands of dollars have went to snowmobiling in Alaska. You asked.

Kevin

 

[mit]

Never said I represented everyone. I represent those that are involved in the organization and promotion of the sport.

Click on the link above and do some research on the Recreational trails program and ORTAB. Thousands of dollars have went to snowmobiling in Alaska. You asked.

Kevin

You didn't have to say it; it is implied buy your office and your signature.

I went through the ORTAB sight and I don't see anywhere that says a dollar came from Gas Tax. Which is part of the Snowmachine Tax problem, tracing the money?

Trail head Tax for all users. If the state wants to put more money into a Trail fine. I don't need, nor want a groomed trail and if I use one then I would not mind paying for it.
I note that, ORTAB allowed tripod marking up in Northwest between villages. Good. Now where did that money come from?? Might as well come out of the General fund.


Abolish the Tax!

 

[kev_alaska]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/index.htm

This page will give you information on the origin of the funding for this program. It specifically lists gas tax from non-highway useage. About the middle of the page is a link to state by state allocations. FY 2008 for Alaska was about $1.2 million. Obviously not near enough of that goes to snowmobiles, but it is there.

Kevin

 

[Winter Project]

theultrarider:

I know i use trails to get to lost lake riding area. What i meant by, I don't like trails, is i don't care for groomed trails, sure they are nice - but I don't seek out these trails. Those Lost Lake trails certainly aren't groomed - or even safely accessible for a sizable portion of the winter. I'm not even convinced those trails were created with the intention of sleds riding up them. At any rate, I'm not trying to argue - just clarifying my stand. And i understand your point.

- Travis

 

[mit]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/index.htm

This page will give you information on the origin of the funding for this program. It specifically lists gas tax from non-highway usage. About the middle of the page is a link to state by state allocations. FY 2008 for Alaska was about $1.2 million. Obviously not near enough of that goes to snowmobiles, but it is there.

Kevin

Well now i have something else to be pissed off about this is clearly not what the Tax was instituted for. How do they keep track of what orv gas use was?

This is accurate!

The RTP funds are distributed to the States by legislative formula: half of the funds are distributed equally among all States, and half are distributed in proportion to the estimated amount of nonhighway recreational fuel use in each State.

 

[kev_alaska]

mit and all,

We have been digging into the state point of sale process for the last several years and the one constant is that it changes according to the whims of non-elected officials. That is why we have been focused on the intent language that will have to be included in any changes. Programs that are open to interpretation always gravitate towards less efficiency. Less efficiency here means less of our money on the ground and too much going towards staff. Not as big a deal if that staffer was a snowmobile advocate, but you know how many of those are in state government.....Too many agencies that are more concerned with thier budget and headcount than doing what was intended for the process to accomplish.

We feel that we have a decent enough handle on the state end of the process to make it work for us. The federal program is a whole different ball of wax. We had a couple people working toward deciphering it a while ago and it always seemed that they had to duct tape thier heads to keep them from exploding.

I am not expecting to change you mind about the registration fee. I don't like taxes in any form whatsoever either. We have been focused on making the programs work for us as a group rather than expand the staff of the park service. Now, if the intent language directly endorses a full time snowmobile advocate on the Parks payroll, we may have to think about that. To even start that discussion, it would have to be designated 100% snowmobile, 24/7 to the exclusion of other projects and would have to be vetted by the public, not parks. The big snow states have them, and that is how they keep other fingers out of their funding sources.

Kevin

 

[AkSledHed]

theultrarider:

I know i use trails to get to lost lake riding area. What i meant by, I don't like trails, is i don't care for groomed trails, sure they are nice - but I don't seek out these trails. Those Lost Lake trails certainly aren't groomed - or even safely accessible for a sizable portion of the winter. I'm not even convinced those trails were created with the intention of sleds riding up them. At any rate, I'm not trying to argue - just clarifying my stand. And i understand your point.

- Travis

I don't know about you but, I sure do like it when they groom the trails out at Petersville, it sure makes accessing the better areas a little easier on the body. Fact is, we need those trails and the grooming program is a good one for everybody.
I've said it before, we need to get the nonmotorized folks a little more involved monetarily since they want to get so involved in shutting us down. As it is they get a free ride for accessing their favorite areas.

 

[mit]

mit and all,

We have been digging into the state point of sale process for the last several years and the one constant is that it changes according to the whims of non-elected officials. That is why we have been focused on the intent language that will have to be included in any changes. Programs that are open to interpretation always gravitate towards less efficiency. Less efficiency here means less of our money on the ground and too much going towards staff. Not as big a deal if that staffer was a snowmobile advocate, but you know how many of those are in state government.....Too many agencies that are more concerned with thier budget and headcount than doing what was intended for the process to accomplish.

We feel that we have a decent enough handle on the state end of the process to make it work for us. The federal program is a whole different ball of wax. We had a couple people working toward deciphering it a while ago and it always seemed that they had to duct tape thier heads to keep them from exploding.

I am not expecting to change you mind about the registration fee. I don't like taxes in any form whatsoever either. We have been focused on making the programs work for us as a group rather than expand the staff of the park service. Now, if the intent language directly endorses a full time snowmobile advocate on the Parks payroll, we may have to think about that. To even start that discussion, it would have to be designated 100% snowmobile, 24/7 to the exclusion of other projects and would have to be vetted by the public, not parks. The big snow states have them, and that is how they keep other fingers out of their funding sources.

Kevin

Here is what I here you saying; we know this system isn't working so lets make another government job to regulated or manage it. I wouldn't say it won't work, but the government track record says not.

I say lets start all over with a new pay as go, by those that use it weather it be fuel driven or not. If your using the trail pay for it.

 

[CATillak]

I wouldnt mind Mit's idea. Would this include places like Placer or maybe Petersville if we dont use the trail? Like a parking permit, or only to go down the trail towards the fork and what not.

 

[theultrarider]

theultrarider:

I know i use trails to get to lost lake riding area. What i meant by, I don't like trails, is i don't care for groomed trails, sure they are nice - but I don't seek out these trails. Those Lost Lake trails certainly aren't groomed - or even safely accessible for a sizable portion of the winter. I'm not even convinced those trails were created with the intention of sleds riding up them. At any rate, I'm not trying to argue - just clarifying my stand. And i understand your point.

- Travis

Travis,
I understand your point as well. No arguement here either. You are correct. Primrose and Firemans trail were hiking trails long before sleds became popular for recreation. Snug Harbor is a different story. This area was not much of anything til the sleds became popular. They started clearing a parking lot for sledders up there this past summer. Too bad it did not get completed before the winter. I sure hope it gets done this summer. My understanding is that it was the orv tax monies that helped to make this parking lot happen. I would be willing to bet that some was involved in the nice lot we now have at Firemans as well. I may be wrong on that one. I sure wish every dollar went directly to real things that matter to us. Parking is huge on my list, since I am like you, and a trail is just a way to get to the good stuff. We do need to park the trucks, and access to get where we are wanting to go. If those fees help our cause, I will not disagree with the fees. Trust me, I hate politics and the system. But like it or not, it is the system that makes the rules and tells us where we can and can not ride. since that is the case, we have no choice but to either become part of the meetings ect, or just accept it when then close our areas down. I don't want to see us lose any more playgrounds so I chose to try to help out our cause by attneding meetings and making a difference when I can.

 

[kev_alaska]

Here is what I here you saying; we know this system isn't working so lets make another government job to regulated or manage it. I wouldn't say it won't work, but the government track record says not.

I say lets start all over with a new pay as go, by those that use it weather it be fuel driven or not. If your using the trail pay for it.

Not exactly. We do know the system has been struggling to represent the ridership as it was intended. Struggling may be a lightweight term for stinking up the place. We have made inroads in getting new representation on the SnoTrac board and have to translate that into pressure on the DNR to act on that representation. If the new representation is not reflected in the program administration, we will lobby the legislature to start over or scrap that portion. The fact is that the grooming pool is working pretty well, it is the other section of the program that needs a complete revamping.

A pay as you go program has its own drawbacks. The constitution mandates that all money collected by the state goes into the General Fund. The legislature then can choose to appropriate money back to a program if it so chooses or is pressured by thier constituants. You would have to develop a system for collecting the trailhead or parking lot fees, gathering them and sending them to Juneau. Then you would have to go to the legislature to lobby for those funds to be returned to a state approved entity to administer the trail program. You wouldn't be getting rid of any governmet involvement, just swapping one for another.

Kevin

 

[mit]

Not exactly. We do know the system has been struggling to represent the ridership as it was intended. Struggling may be a lightweight term for stinking up the place. We have made inroads in getting new representation on the SnoTrac board and have to translate that into pressure on the DNR to act on that representation. If the new representation is not reflected in the program administration, we will lobby the legislature to start over or scrap that portion. The fact is that the grooming pool is working pretty well, it is the other section of the program that needs a complete revamping.

A pay as you go program has its own drawbacks. The constitution mandates that all money collected by the state goes into the General Fund. The legislature then can choose to appropriate money back to a program if it so chooses or is pressured by thier constituants. You would have to develop a system for collecting the trailhead or parking lot fees, gathering them and sending them to Juneau. Then you would have to go to the legislature to lobby for those funds to be returned to a state approved entity to administer the trail program. You wouldn't be getting rid of any governmet involvement, just swapping one for another.

Kevin

Well my first choice is to not have anything spent on trails by the State and do away with the Tax.
I would only offer up the other plan to give the people that can't break there own trail an option but it would be up to them.
If folks want a trail system like in Wisconsin than move there.
Just cause you get the right people on a board today doesn't mean they will be there tomorrow. Game Board......... Fish Board.....
I don't want to be fighting over where the money should be spent every year.
If the trail is being used and supported well gee wiz no need for a board to decided where to spend the money.
How does the state pay for all of its airports with out a plane tax? rhetorical question.

How do we collect boat ramp money?

You could buy a trail permit like the yearly boat ramp permit. If you want to use an IMPROVED TRAIL! That would be skiers, hikers, snowmacnines, 4 wheelers, snow shoes, what ever; if your on the trail you should have the permit. Who would enforce it you say? Well the same people that do NOW!
If your not on a trail that hasn't received state money you shouldn't need a permit.

Point is and you have said it this crap ain't working and I'm not into tweaking it and waiting to see how it goes! Get rid of it and don't put a new one in place until you know it's going to work.

kEEP IT SIMPLE AND FAIR FOR ALL .

 

[mit]

Who is Kevin Hite? Alaska State Snowmobile Association (ASSA) president.
Kevin sent a letter to Palin asking to INCREASE the snowmobile registration fee. Why? He feels the fees charged are now better managed and he sees a difference.
He published this in the October 2007 ASSA newsletter pages 4 & 17. The end of the article is this "I would like to inform you that ASSA is going to be approaching several of our legislative contacts to advocate the increasing of yearly fees."
I am a member of two snowmachine clubs and we were never asked by ASSA how we felt about this topic. In fact I contacted the presidents of the following clubs and asked if Kevin or ASSA contacted them about an increase in registration. No one had been asked.
Northern lights snow mobile club (Eielson)
Lake Louise Snowmachine Club
Resurrection Snow Riders (Seward)
Snowmads of Homer & Anchor point
Valdez Snowmobile Club
Chilkat Snowburners Inc. (Haines)
Caribou Hill Hoppers (Clam Gulch)
Alaska Trailblazers (Tok)
Delta Snow Seekers
I am sadden that ASSA, who I thought was the big brother of organized clubs, took this upon themselves to increase registration fees. I know you guys in the Anchorage area like those groomed trails. But don't have folks from Arctic Village to Bettles pay for them. Pay the fee at the trailhead to support the groomers. Just like the boat launches. Buy a pass to park.

I am very disappointed I had representation without authorization! My ASSA newsletters are now used to line the bottom of the bird cage!

Eric C.

I know this guy and he did what he said! the State association needs to be listening to other area's of the state as well as representing users other than weekend riders of groomed trails or the high marker. The term " Recreational Trails" needs to be used very carefully, when talking about trails in Alaska, it should be used at the proper location at the proper time. The money spent on marking between villages in northern Alaska is NOT a Recreational endeavor as much as it is a way of life today, just like a highway in New Jersey.

 

[furthur]

I've read all this. and both sides are valid. I would, however, get behind ANY program that could just get the parking we have plowed all winter...I'm thinking of Gunsite, and Igloo, specifically, though there is more. Trailhead improvements in general would be worth double the registration fees, to me, never mind grooming. What about paying for all sledders to access the "private" land near cantwell out of the fund? It should bring ahetna way more money than they get now...

Loosing land, and paying more taxes, to do something I have taken as a "God given" right, up until now, is not easy (I was born up here), but it beats the alternative.

John