- Location
- Desert Beach So Cal
The below is from Gene King, and pertains to grant applications in Colorado.
For those that have been following the grant process in California,
this is a significant difference. Thanks to all that sent a letter
of support and congratulations to recreation interests in Colorado
for a job well done!
From: "Gene W. King" <[email protected]>
Subject: COHVCO Grant #114
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:09:43 -0600
About a month ago I emailed many people, including the United Delegates, for
emails to the Colorado Parks BOD in support of this grant. The COHVCO
(Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition) grant is for the hiring of experts,
i.e., retired forests supervisors to create a motorized alternative to the
Uncompahgre travel plan.
The enviros (anti-access) people went nuts. How dare we use motorized
recreation money ( the grant funds come from the registration of dirt bikes
and ATV's) for motorized recreation!
The Parks BOD sent it back to COHVCO with some recommendations, mostly to
rewrite it to include more input from the public, read ant-access folks.
The COHVCO BOD voted to NOT rewrite the grant as no grant application has
ever been requested to have a re-write.
The below is the email that John Martin, COHVCO Chair, sent to the BOD. I
asked to resend it to the United folks and he agreed.
Actually, this has turned into a LARGE OHV victory in Colorado.
Note: "Jerry" is Jerry Abboud, Executive Director of COHVCO, attorney, OHV
lobbyist, asst General Manager of Fay Meyers motorcycles, Chair of the OHV
grant sub-committee and chair of the Colorado State Trails committee. Yes,
he's a very busy guy!!
If you have an OHV grant program in your state, maybe this experience will
help you in the future.
Gene W. King
[email protected]
CoA4WDCI COHVCO Rep
Director, COHVCO
United Delegate
> I attended the State Trails Committee meeting and Parks Board meeting
> with Jerry today. With Jerry's terrific leadership as Chair of the
> Trails committee, our grant got recommended for funding with no votes
> against. There were five modifications that we need to consider but I
> think, along with Jerry, that they do not significantly change the
> request. Here they are:
> 1. Limit travel study to the Gunnison NF.
> 2. Remove the term "alternative" and replace with "study".
> 3. Take input from a wide variety of interests, including the
> environmental community.
> 4. Make the study available through Parks, to the public.
> 5. Communicate with local trail users.
>
> With this, the Parks Board passed the grant and we will get the money.
>
> Comments on the changes:
> 1. This was our original intent. The Grand Mesa has a lot of opportunity
> and the Uncompahgre is in litigation. We should in our comments, not
> included in the study, deal with the Uncompahgre and Grand Mesa. We are
> still waiting for the Grand Mesa 100 mile decision, and Andrew (COHVCO"s
attorney) has shot
> across their bow once, it may be time for a stronger letter.
> 2. I think we wanted the information so we could do the "alternative"
> stuff anyway. This does not change the function of the grant.
> 3. Take input, not share any control. Why wouldn't we want to know what
> "they" think is important. Two possibilities here. Either we will get
> the same paragraphs we always see or we may know where they want to
> fight. Either way, information is power.
> 4. It doesn't say when. We will have time to digest and do what we want
> with the information, eventually we will send it, or include it with our
> other comments, to the FS and it will be public information anyway.
> 5. This was our intent anyway, no list of locals to be consulted with
> here.
>
> The evident outcome of the fight here is that we have to produce a high
> quality report and include all we can in it. We were under the gun for a
> few weeks, we will now be under the microscope.
> The Board needs to accept theses terms, please return a "yes" or "no".
(They voted yes unanimously)
> We still have the option of pulling the grant, but I think we got
> everything we wanted and the envirowhiners lost a lot of respect in the
> process. The Colorado Mountain Club guy on the state trails committee
> voted to recommend it and their executive director still testified
> against it to the Parks Board. The comments about them were interesting
> after the meeting.
>
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs,
United Four Wheel Drive Associations, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Moderator, MUIRNet - Multiple Use Information Resource Network
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to MUIRNet, send email to [email protected].
For those that have been following the grant process in California,
this is a significant difference. Thanks to all that sent a letter
of support and congratulations to recreation interests in Colorado
for a job well done!
From: "Gene W. King" <[email protected]>
Subject: COHVCO Grant #114
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:09:43 -0600
About a month ago I emailed many people, including the United Delegates, for
emails to the Colorado Parks BOD in support of this grant. The COHVCO
(Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition) grant is for the hiring of experts,
i.e., retired forests supervisors to create a motorized alternative to the
Uncompahgre travel plan.
The enviros (anti-access) people went nuts. How dare we use motorized
recreation money ( the grant funds come from the registration of dirt bikes
and ATV's) for motorized recreation!
The Parks BOD sent it back to COHVCO with some recommendations, mostly to
rewrite it to include more input from the public, read ant-access folks.
The COHVCO BOD voted to NOT rewrite the grant as no grant application has
ever been requested to have a re-write.
The below is the email that John Martin, COHVCO Chair, sent to the BOD. I
asked to resend it to the United folks and he agreed.
Actually, this has turned into a LARGE OHV victory in Colorado.
Note: "Jerry" is Jerry Abboud, Executive Director of COHVCO, attorney, OHV
lobbyist, asst General Manager of Fay Meyers motorcycles, Chair of the OHV
grant sub-committee and chair of the Colorado State Trails committee. Yes,
he's a very busy guy!!
If you have an OHV grant program in your state, maybe this experience will
help you in the future.
Gene W. King
[email protected]
CoA4WDCI COHVCO Rep
Director, COHVCO
United Delegate
> I attended the State Trails Committee meeting and Parks Board meeting
> with Jerry today. With Jerry's terrific leadership as Chair of the
> Trails committee, our grant got recommended for funding with no votes
> against. There were five modifications that we need to consider but I
> think, along with Jerry, that they do not significantly change the
> request. Here they are:
> 1. Limit travel study to the Gunnison NF.
> 2. Remove the term "alternative" and replace with "study".
> 3. Take input from a wide variety of interests, including the
> environmental community.
> 4. Make the study available through Parks, to the public.
> 5. Communicate with local trail users.
>
> With this, the Parks Board passed the grant and we will get the money.
>
> Comments on the changes:
> 1. This was our original intent. The Grand Mesa has a lot of opportunity
> and the Uncompahgre is in litigation. We should in our comments, not
> included in the study, deal with the Uncompahgre and Grand Mesa. We are
> still waiting for the Grand Mesa 100 mile decision, and Andrew (COHVCO"s
attorney) has shot
> across their bow once, it may be time for a stronger letter.
> 2. I think we wanted the information so we could do the "alternative"
> stuff anyway. This does not change the function of the grant.
> 3. Take input, not share any control. Why wouldn't we want to know what
> "they" think is important. Two possibilities here. Either we will get
> the same paragraphs we always see or we may know where they want to
> fight. Either way, information is power.
> 4. It doesn't say when. We will have time to digest and do what we want
> with the information, eventually we will send it, or include it with our
> other comments, to the FS and it will be public information anyway.
> 5. This was our intent anyway, no list of locals to be consulted with
> here.
>
> The evident outcome of the fight here is that we have to produce a high
> quality report and include all we can in it. We were under the gun for a
> few weeks, we will now be under the microscope.
> The Board needs to accept theses terms, please return a "yes" or "no".
(They voted yes unanimously)
> We still have the option of pulling the grant, but I think we got
> everything we wanted and the envirowhiners lost a lot of respect in the
> process. The Colorado Mountain Club guy on the state trails committee
> voted to recommend it and their executive director still testified
> against it to the Parks Board. The comments about them were interesting
> after the meeting.
>
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs,
United Four Wheel Drive Associations, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Moderator, MUIRNet - Multiple Use Information Resource Network
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to MUIRNet, send email to [email protected].
