boardbysled
Tree Nerd.
Here is an example of a letter that I wrote reguarding this issue. If you are no good at writing or something along those lines, feel free to use this example, just fill in the [----] areas. But, remember, this is from my interpritation of this bill, and my own personal opinions. Here is how to find out who your reps are, there is also an email form on thier pages.
Dear [Insert Reps Names Here]
I, [Insert your name here] as a tax-paying citizen of Washington State do not support amendment 5366 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/CMD/showdoc....npkJNRwh3hJC37yHk2UZOQeyY10ZfZa+hTPA==&y=2011), Section 3, Part 3. I feel it infringes upon my rights to use public lands as a tax-paying citizen.
What this amendment would change is I would no longer be allowed to [ride/drive] my ORV upon the thousands of miles of Department of Washington state trust roads. I spend [average days per year on DNR roads here] traveling these roads on my [ORV choice here]. I spend [estimated yearly monies spend on traveling on DNR lands roads, including upgrades to your ORV, fuel, food, etc.] that I spend through my local retailers when recreating with my ORV.
The new section 3 counteracts many of the positives that sections 1 and 2 allow. They are counterproductive of each other, leading to more unneeded bureaucracy. Section 3 would supersede sections 1 and 2 in many situations around the state, where certain DNR roads could be accessed via the rules in sections 1 and 2, but would not be able to be accessed because of section 3. Also, these roads that would be shut down have already gone over impact studies done for these forest roads. Many of the regulations for forest roads are greater than the permitting and studies that would be required for ORV travel upon these roads, essentially causing an unneeded double permitting process.
These roads that would be closed by the section 3 amendment of this bill are often traveled upon by dispersed recreationalists, meaning recreationalists that are not recreating at a designated park. These recreationalists would then have no choice but to recreate in the current ORV parks, putting more use upon trails systems that can hardly handle the current use. This would lead to a break down in the infrastructure of these parks, of which Department of Natural Resources has very limited funding.
Many of these roads that would by shut down by section 3 of this bill are in ORV parks such as Walker Valley and Elbe Hills, along with another half dozen sites across Washington State. If this bill passes through with section 3 being amended, it would effectively shut down these sites until Department of Natural Resources could go through with the permitting and engineering processes. One of the big problems is, that these processes would be delayed indefinitely, because the Department of Natural Resources hardly has the funding to operate these parks at current levels, not to mention adding a whole load of new engineering and permitting processes that would be required.
Also, this newly amended section of this bill provides a loop-hole that could and would shut down current DNR ORV areas such as Walker Valley and Elbe Hills. The tens of thousands of visitors to these parks would no longer be spending their monies in the local economies supporting ORV recreation. This would put another strain on already weakened local, small businesses.
I would like to stress that I support the first and second sections of this bill. I believe that these sections of this bill could help bolster local economies by driving more ORV sales and thusly more sales associated with these ORVs. I also believe that this would take a strain off local enforcement agencies by allowing ORVs that are already present on some roads to be legal. This would allow officers to be open to respond to more urgent calls.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you. If you wish to speak to me in person, my phone contact number is [phone number here].
Thanks,
[your name here]
Last edited:
issed:
