Sorry I've been away for a while, I've been busy. I'll post whats been happening on the "Noise issue" since the rally in the next few weeks.



The anti's have been busy too, this certainly looks like Senator Karen Fraser's work to me...

See Page 130 of the Capital Budget signed just 2 weeks ago:

Lines 23 thru 25 are a little to vague for my taste but other than that I think it's an appropriate use of funds. It will be just like any other beuracratic process in law enforcement though - "Has the officer been trained?" "Are the calibratrion documents available?" yada, yada, yada

BUT!!!! Maybe people will start quieting down their ORV's once they know it will be better enforced....:thumbsup:

I'm okay with that. Let's hammer on the loud pipe spodes that make us all look bad.

-----Original Message-----
From: Art Tuftee
To: Lovelady, Greg
Subject: Re: Two NOVA Memos to the IAC Board

Am I reading this right? We are setting aside $450,000 of NOVA funds just for noise enforcement? That's ridiculous. I guess I missed something along the way or I would have had some strong comments about this. I'm fine with E&E programs funding noise enforcement as part of a grant but to create a whole new category with such a large piece of the pie is out of line.

Is this a one time thing or will it be part of every grant cycle?

How is this $450k appropriation effecting funds available to the traditional NOVA categories?

Have E&E programs been expressing a need f or this funding?

Will the NOVA committee be requested to score grant applications for this new program?

-Art

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: "Lovelady, Greg"
Sent: May 29, 2007 2:09 PM
To: 'Art Tuftee' , "Rick Dahl,
Subject: RE: Two NOVA Memos to the IAC Board


To: Rick Dahl,

You asked about "...the dollar figure of ORV sticker funds in the $9 million and what amount from the sticker funds will be taken to fund this." Of the $9,036,000 in the Capital Budget available for grants, our current estimate is that $2,793,669 is ORV permit money. We are seeking legal advice on how to take the $450,000, mandated by the Legislature for noise enforcement grants, out of the total appropriation.

To: Art Tuftee,

In response to your first question, you did read it correctly. This 2007 legislative mandate to IAC is for the current biennium, ending June 30 2009.
We are now seeking legal advice on how the $450,000 will be taken out of the NOVA appropriation. We should know more after the IAC board meeting, on June 7-8.

Greg Lovelady
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
[In July 2007 IAC's name will officially change to "Recreation & Conservation Funding Board."
For more information, click http://www.iac.wa.go...ame_change.htm]
1111 Washington Street SE
PO Box 40917
Olympia, WA 98504-0917
360/ 902-3008 ~ 360/ 902-3026 (fax)
Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD) 360/ 902-1996
http://www.iac.wa.gov/

I expect the devil is in the details.

Are "local law enforcement and noise enforcement agencies" the proper places to grant money if we want to get Krazy Klarence to stiffle his utility quad out at Tahuya? Who is this "noise enforcement agency" of which you speak?

This is how things are supposed to work, your ORV Tab money is to go only to ORV Facilities:



What has happened is that the ORV permit Fees of $2,793,699.00 (Tab money) is now comingled with $6,242,331.00 of fuel tax money available for grants... The IAC WILL remove $450,000.00 for the NOISE police from this total. Therefore $139,126.94 of your ORV tab money goes to the noise police and not to a riding area. NOTE: This $450K is over and above ALL Education and Enforcement allocation.

It is my opinion Karen Fraser stole your ORV money yet again.

we need to keep bikes quite so by what i am seeing looks ok to me but i also don't know much about our system. I cant imagine that really good equipment is cheap.:confused: :excuseme:

It's the part about "compensating law enforcement agencies for staff overtime and administrative expenses" that I don't like...

Sounds like an after hours staff meeting at Deja Vu to me :busted:

WOHVA is having a meeting with Pene Speaks next week and we will go over this and other issues, such as $280,000 of motorized NOVA money that should go to DNR motorized trails instead going to a "study" to determine best signage for trails.

So I helped the PSER's out with sound test last weekend.

Am I a "noise enforcement agency" and should I get state funded testing equipment, travel expenses and $75 / hour funding from "the state"?

I'm serious.

MACE said:

Yes, yes, yes, and yes!

I am serious too :prof:

I was not clear enough on this issue.

The issue is NOT sound testing, the issue is the theft of your ORV Tab money. Dave Hiatt speaks clearer here:

Quote

These funds are being raided NOW, I have sat with the ANTIs in many meetings over the past several years, I know their game: They are stealing your money and they will use it against the ORV user.

MACE said:

If you get the support of the agency controlling the land where you would be conducting testing you can submit a grant application as soon as the IAC determines the actual process and timeline for distribution of these funds.

DirtCheapJohn said:

This coincides with both newspaper's and riders reporting continuing emphasis patrols on all motorcycles.

Fraser is using our money to write tickets to collect statistics to make a case that we are indeed the riotous hooligans she tried to protray us as this year when she reintroduces her bill handing enforcement of any and all ORV violations to sleazy Sierra Club trial lawyers, who are guaranteed payment as soon as they find someone to sign a complaint, whether that complaint has any merit whatsoever.

This has absolutely Nothing to do with quieting down our forests!
If they wanted quieter forests the libs would have agreed to the Hunyford amendment, which would have lowered the db limit to 96 from 105, sans the $800 ticket & $5,000 attorney fees language.
That language clearly stated that all the lib's attorneys had to do was Bring an action to collect their fees, not Win it.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should go back and read section 4 of SB 5544.

Thanks for digging this up, John.

OK this does not sound right to me so what do we do about it???
Joe.............

The IAC will be meeting in Spokane, 7-8 June to decide where and when to insert the hose.


http://www.iac.wa.go...rd/schedule.htm

A big thanks to "recent legal advice..." :thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup:

:naughty: We will keep watching the IAC and Fraser anyway, and keep you updated. :ride: :usa::ride:


[from Greg Lovelady]

Quote