Pigeon River & Beyond - Back Country Horsemen, Michigan

Friends and Supporters--
    There will be another hearing on the Michigan Recreation Passport Bill on Wednesday, April 22nd (Earth Day) at 1:00 pm at 110 Farnum Bldg.  The hearing will be before the Senate Natural Resources Committee chaired by Senator Birkholz.
    A key goal of the Citizen's Committee for Michigan State Parks will be to get those who did not have a chance to speak at the joint hearing an opportunity to speak.  The theme of this hearing will be how the bill will affect funding of organizations such as MMBA, Horse Friends, MUSH, Scout Troops and other user groups.
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?id=2255&District=24

You can click on this link and read about it.  Myself, I feel that it's a good thing-would save our family $28...only thing that I don't like is that I would have to replace my special license plate that I now have-think a little sticker would be much more cost effective!

I don't think you will have to give up your custom or specialty license plate, the license plate doesn't change, it is just an added fee at renewal. 

Instead of a specific permit, an official Michigan license plate will serve as the parks passport.  There will be no need for a sticker on the license plate or anywhere else on the vehicle.

This is what I read so I'm presuming that a different plate would be made?  How would they be able if not to tell whether you did or didnot pay the extra fee?  Doesn't make sence-If there's no difference then why would I want to just pay $10-if my neighbor doesn't and goes in free? Humm-guess that's why they are having another hearing....:)

From the website listed in the  above post it says in part:
Funds raised would be used for state park operations and maintenance;
local and regional recreation grants; non-motorized forest recreation pathways and state forest campgrounds;.......

My question would be what percentage  would be allocated to non-motorized forest recreational pathways and state forest camp grounds.?? Equal shares? ??
The Monies collected should only be used on multi-user trails for all users  and not to dicriminate and shut out horsemen from using trails.  
 Perhaps if the representatives who drafted this bill would include language
that states monies collected to be used on only trails that do not discriminate
between users. .  
Another thing they could throw in some language  that includes
the continued use and access of pack and saddle animals on all
state owned land where there is a historical tradition of use of
pack and saddle animals.  Then they maybe more horsemen would support this bill.   The way I look at it , it seems they spend more money on camp grounds for  what I call "CITY Campers" than any where else.  If I can't ride my horses in the state parks and forest then

why do I want to go there. 

Mike check out this link....Looks like if it would pass around 7% would go to state forest campssgrounds and trail systems...small amount of the total...http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/11-2007-01_MI_State_Park_Vehicle_Plate_Proposal_222153_7.pdf  ; I goggled up Citizens committee and then scrolled down to the resolution that was adopted last year.

I though HB 4204 was going to reallocate money and provide more for increased recreational spending? 

Instead of 1/3 of collected monies being used for various recreational/natural resource allocations; it would be 1/2 of collected monies. Therefore, the 25% use to improve recreational facilities would be 1/4 of the half; instead of 1/4 of 1/3.

I believe that the intent of this legislation is very good; however, in the current economic environment, I'm afraid there will be many who opt out. Especially when plate renewal falls in the winter months.  And...  then pay to have an attendant to charge out-of-state residents?  Doesn't make financial sense.

I own 2 motor vehicles.  Should I pay for both? or just one?  In the past, I would have had to buy 2 stickers. And to be completely honest, I have not purchased a state sticker for the last 2 years simply because it wasn't worth it to me. There's many county parks I don't need a sticker for; and Federal land. so why should I buy a state sticker? 

I looked over their scenarios and I'm confused with their numbers. Regardless of the acceptance rate 75%; 70%; 65%; the fee to the Secretary of State remained at $640,620 to collect the "donations". 

Hmmm... I know no one is trying to pull a fast one...  just not enough attention to detail.

A couple things, <a href="http://www.ourmichiganparks.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/12-2008-01_mi-state-park-vehicle-plate-proposal_resolution_rev021809.pdf"> http://www.ourmichiganparks.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/12-2008-01_mi-state-park-vehicle-plate-proposal_resolution_rev021809.pdf </a>  is the resolution that I am referencing to support the various funding levels.  I don't see your $640,620 number anywhere in there but my guess would be that the acceptance rate doesn't change the cost to the SOS to administer the program, that would be a fixed cost.

Rep. Sheltrown's proposal probably doesn't have a very good chance of going anywhere because he's trying to change a constitutional amendment that was just recently reaffirmed by popular vote. 

As for the opt out reasoning, it's basic psychology that is being implemented in business regularly.  The trend for retirement plans like 401k's is to automatically enroll the new employee unless they opt out.  It takes advantage of both laziness and status quo. 

And I'll just reiterate why supporting this is a good idea. Having access to trails becomes moot if the DNR closes everything for lack of money and / or sells off the land.

The version I saw was an older one..  but still. Look at the cost of administration.  The formula is not adjusted for each successive change in the percent of acceptance.  Someone didn't apply their formulas correctly.  They kept the number of "issuances" the same. 

Well. I don't think the DNR has such a lack of money as they claim. The citizens have a greater lack of money. That lack of money means less income tax paid into the state funds. But because the DNR money does not come from the general fund, it can't be adjusted in the same way that other department accounts are.

The DNR money comes from mineral and oil leases. It comes from licenses and camping fees.  It comes from interest payments.

Their budget is DEPLETED everytime they buy more land. The answer? STOP BUYING LAND.  It's no different than households that keep buying more "stuff" that they cannot afford to take care of. 

I think that camping and recreational areas should have funding from the tourism budgets. $30 million is being spent on an ad campaign to generate $120 million in tourism dollars.  But where? Recreation? Hardly. Sports Arenas? Conventions? probably. And where are those venues? In the outdoors? hardly. 

Why doesn't the DNR accept volunteer hours? Why can't they use prison labor?  What about all the stimulus money?  Remember, this license plate fee was visualized in 2007... before the stock market crashed and stim money became available. 

Has anyone LOOKED at the money the DNR wants to spend? I'm sure the budget is online.  Instead of CLOSING areas that can generate MONEY in camping fees (not talking park permits) or boat launch fees; why not try to bring in MORE users? 

just some other thoughts to the problem.  I'm not against the opt-out program, I just think that there are some holes in the resolution. Especially the figures used to pay the SOS that should be adjusted according to what is ACTUALLY collected.

I can't see where trails - at least for hikers and horses - cost that much money.  No paving required.  What does it really cost to let horse people and hikers and bike riders rustic camp?  A DNR employee to drive around and make sure everyone has paid the post?  Putting some TP in an pit toilet?  It's not like we expect trails groomed. The majority of clearing is either done by volunteers or... we simply ride / walk around it.  Look at how much work the MTRA people do. Back Country will be doing the same thing to help clean up trails. Many bikers and horse groups will be out taking care of their areas at no cost to the DNR.

The last time we camped at the Garey Lake lower camp we had our daugher and 2 granddaughters along.  The charge is $6. per person per night, no discount for children of any age.  So, we paid $6 per night for 5 people for the privilege of no picket posts, an out house and a hand pump that only worked after another camper fixed it!  I think that is rather excessive!

Gabz, the funding will not change with the percentage opting in or out.  The SOS will need to print and process the same number of forms regardless of who opts in or out.  Only the funding itself will change with the percentage of people who opt in or out.

I'll agree that rustic camping is a small line item in the total budget.  Unfortunately, it's the RV campers in developed parks that spend the most and cost the most.  The DNR is simply catering to where the money is.  And let's face it, hunters and motorized users spend more money when camping than hikers and equestrians (I said when camping, not necessarily overall - I don't have figures either way).