Death Valley Off-Road Adventures

Do you have any data to back up your statement? Given that DVNP, JTNP and MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE are located within the CA borders, and within reasonable driving distance (notice I did not say time) from the huge population that graces our countries western coast, odds (I don't have any backup data either) are the perps are from CA. I'll give you some from Los Vegas though.

 

With almost 2 million visitors annually, I'm pretty sure that they come from all 50 states as well as throughout the world.

My point is, DV is a National Park asking for State OHV funds-OHV funds that are reserved for Off Highway projects. Off-Highway travel is prohibited in National Parks.

 

OHV funds have been used for enforcement efforts such as the acquisition of a trail capable vehicle and the training of officers in the correct operation, rescue, etc.

The main difference? These were projects that support OHV access.

 

So apparently DVNP applied for and was awarded a restoration grant in the 2016/2017 grant cycle. The public comments are interesting:

http://www.ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29507

The majority are from visitors upset by damage they saw when visiting and support the measure but certainly don’t sound like OHV users. There are a smaller number who object to spending money in a location in which green stickers aren’t allowed in the first place.

Looking at the site apparently the grant process does specifically have an entire section dedicated to restoration rather than facilitating use, education or law enforcement which are all separate sections. While the other sections would seem to only apply to OHV use areas I suppose one could claim restoration can be needed anywhere. But as pointed out here and in the previous public comments it doesn’t seem like OHV vehicles are actually causing the damage in DVNP.

 

I’d assume (perhaps incorrectly) that CHP and CalTrans, and perhaps other state agencies do work, ie spend state dollars, in the Park. So if OHV funds can be legally used for restoration, it doesn’t seem totally out of line.

I still can’t understand why someone would drive there in the first place, but there’s a lot about humankind I just don’t get.

 

I can completely understand the perception of the public and how upset someone can be seeing that kind of damage. Hell, it pisses me off too. But, when I think of the millions that have been stolen from the OHV fund and the lack of improvements at our SVRA's, giving money to the feds to fix these damaged area? Sorry. Not sympathetic. Maybe DV could seek volunteers to help maintain the parks-OHV communities have been maintaining trails for years-after all, most of the damage has occurred since the monument became a park.

 

After reading a lot of the comments at the link @DVexile posted, I am coming around more to thinking that the OHV funds shouldn’t be used. Though I believe the majority of OHV dollars come from gas taxes, not green/red sticker or Rec area fees, so all vehicles/drivers help fund it. Well, except for those Tesla drivers testing Ludicrous Mode. “For (Race)Track Use Only”.

 

Upon reading this a second time, I felt it put too much of the blame on the OHV community. I wrote the author explaining her article unfairly targets the OHV community-even pictures show a more auto style tire except one picture. I did thank her for bringing the issues to light-I do think that's important too-just don't hang it all on the OHV community.

 

After reading the public response to the proposal to use OHV funds in became clear vast majority of responders had no knowledge of what OHV funds were for and were responding solely out of emotions that damage should be repaired
I suspect you would get a completely different response if you repainted the picture to be that NPS requested to take funding away from the local high schools because it implied the tire tracks were caused by some teenagers joy riding.

 

So first and foremost the way I think this should really work is that the National Park should be adequately funded at the federal level to do whatever is necessary to balance use and preservation as well as mitigate recreation (legal and otherwise) effects through restoration. That seems like a no brainer to me but of course that's not been the way things have worked for quite sometime now with the result we have Parks looking for funding anywhere they can reasonably get it from.

As to whether it is "fair" for the NP to get some of these OHV funds I don't have a strong opinion either way really. However before forming a strong opinion let's take a look at where the funds are coming from since one of the criticisms is that the NP is effectively stealing red and green sticker fees even though red and green stickers aren't allowed in the park.

First what we are talking about is the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund (OHVTF).

Where does it get its money? On page 8 of this report:

So in fact the red and green stickers only account for 25% of the fund. So why are there gasoline taxes funding the OHVTF? Well since state gasoline taxes are suppose to pay for maintaining highways there was legislation passed sometime ago that mandated that gasoline used not on the highways should be either directly refunded to the user (e.g. farmers and ranchers) or in the case of recreational users be diverted to the OHVTF in order to support recreation uses and impacts. The state uses studies to estimate what percentage of total gasoline sales are actually being used for recreational OHV uses and then transfers that percentage of the gasoline taxes to the OHVTF.

The remaining question then is what does the state consider a recreational OHV use? Is it just green and red sticker vehicles? Is it just vehicles in OHV use areas? What exactly is a "highway" in the first place?

See page 2-2 (page 14 of the PDF) in this report.

It further clarifies:

And to be clear multiple places in multiple documents it makes clear "OHV" refers to both red/green stickered vehicles as well as street licensed vehicles.

So I'm driving down West Side Road in DVNP in my Tacoma am I an OHV user? Yes as far as the OHVTF is concerned and the gasoline taxes I paid to power my vehicle down West Side Road are in theory suppose to have been accounted for and diverted to the OHVTF.

Those tracks some moron put all over Racetrack? That was an OHV user as far as the OHVTF was concerned. The tracks on the playa just off of West Side Road? Also an OHV user because they were on West Side Road. The tracks on the playa just off of Badwater Road? Not really, Badwater road is considered a highway.

Are OHV users getting screwed out of some of their fees and taxes? Oh of course, just like just about every other use tax payer in the state. There is a line in the legislation where they just arbitrarily divert $833K of the gasoline taxes that are suppose to go to the OHVTF into the General Fund instead.

Are they accounting for all the OHV users they are suppose to when diverting gasoline taxes? Well you can look at the numbers yourself on their site and note that of all the diverted gas taxes only 0.03% of those are Inyo County users (and DVNP is almost entirely in Inyo). Basically they are diverting gasoline taxes from just 6,589 gallons of gas per year for Inyo County OHV users. Hmmm.... A round trip to Racetrack Playa would consume on average about three gallons of gas. There are less than on average 7 vehicles going to Racetrack every day? And no other dirt road in Inyo County gets driven on ever for recreation? Yeah so obviously the OHVTF isn't getting the gasoline tax revenues it should to account for DV users.

So as usual there isn't a clear answer on "fair". As the legislation is written indeed when you drive on a dirt road in DV you are considered an OHV user and your gasoline taxes should be contributing to the fund. So DVNP should be able to get some of those funds. But the OHVTF like similar funds for other purposes isn't properly funded and is frequently raided for other uses.

 

These are all good points. However, and for me, it does not change the fact DV is a National Park and OHVTF is a state fund.

 

I get where you are coming from but to me it is much more blurry than that. The state gets tax revenue from hotel stays in the park - not to mention in Ridgecrest and Lone Pine as well. The OHVTF also provides lots of grants to the BLM OHV sites. Is that inappropriate? A bunch of communities (Ridgecrest, Barstow, etc.) get a lot of tourist dollars and tax revenue because of nearby BLM OHV areas. The state has no interest in using funds to support those federal sites?

Almost all SAR in the park is done by county and state emergency services. Caltrans maintains the 190. The whole summer international visitors pour through DVNP and other NPs in the state racking up massive amounts of bills into the state economy and state taxes. Those highways we all drive on are paid for by local, state and federal dollars all mixed together. There is very, very little around that is purely state or purely Federal. State agencies get federal grants all the time and the other way around too.

There really aren't very many bright lines between local, state and federal when it comes to funding, revenues and impacts.

 

That's pretty much it too. The way things go anymore we need to be happy that something positive gets done because the only other real alternative is closure.

 

Of course, it's not clear however BLM supports OHV activity so it makes sense. The National Parks do not support OHV. Of course, you can argue most of the interesting places are all reachable only by OHV yet those are still considered roads by the park.

Taxes, etc. help the cities maintain and provide services for visitors to the park-it's somewhat a symbiotic relationship.

I guess we're going to have to disagree about using OHV funds for the support of a place OHV is unwelcome. If the National Parks need state funds, the state should consider these requests separately and take the money from the general fund.

 

@ian408 I don't really disagree with you in this case, seems like a stretch to me to go for the funds. Just was pointing out crossing local, state and federal funds is common so I don't think that is the strongest objection here. Also as far as CA is concerned there is plenty of OHV travel and OHV vehicles in DVNP because of what the CVC defines off-highway as (specifically it includes street legal vehicles on all the unpaved roads in DVNP as OHV). They are suppose to collect revenue from those users (via diverted gasoline taxes). I think the best argument for why DVNP is a poor fit based on the OHVTF documents is that they divert a ludicrously low amount of gasoline tax from Inyo County where DVNP is. So despite how they define OHV when they go and show their revenue numbers it sure looks like they aren't counting all that "OHV" use in DVNP. Or really in any of the BLM or NFS land in Inyo given how small the number is.

 

I have been think about this and something I haven’t mentioned is the perception the use of OHV funds leave the general public and that is that the off-road community is responsible for damaging the park. And while I’m sure there is some responsibility, it’s not just the off-road community who is responsible.

Time to let it go.

 

As far as I've seen alcohol is behind some of the stupidity when it comes to illegal offroading. Not saying that's the case here, just an observation I've made over the years.

 

Hadn't thought of it that way before. Good point.

 

JOKE:

 

Finally caving to the call of DV thanks to this forum and all your trip reports and photos.

Sorry if this has been discussed, but I can't find a clear answer by searching: Does anyone know of flights have resumed through rainbow canyon?

Also, I read that campfires aren't generally allowed, which makes sense for random roadside camping--but are there established sites with (legal) stone fire rings outside of the developed park campgrounds? I have warm stuff, but a fireless camp with 40 degree temperatures sounds pretty miserable!