Unplowed Sno-Parks - Report them!

[sobo]

Bigger than occupy?

Even Bellingham is giving them the boot.

Bellingham fer god sake!

Think of the children! For the love of god, man, think of the children!!!1

[Tyson.g]

I would say the occupy sno park movement would have more of an impact for the positive given it's unified purpose and clear goal!

Helluva lot more fun too!

[sobo]

And think of all of the Chocolate Labs and Shelbys that we'd have to choose from to be our OSP "spokesperson"...

[ilookeddown]

There are more than 120 Sno-Parks (parking lots cleared of snow) available statewide during winter. Approximately 80 of the Sno-Parks are designated primarily for snowmobiling.

 

Like mentioned above a Sno-Parks permit is included in the $30 registration fee for a snowmobile. ($12 for a vintage machine) They are not required to buy a special groomed trail permit even though the trails are regularly groomed.

 

A non-motorized Sno-Park permit costs $40 and a special groomed permit is an additional $40. I called the winter recreation program number in Olympia to see if I could buy a snowmobile permit and save myself $10 but was sent to voice mail. I couldn’t leave a message because their mail box was full. Guess I will have to send an email.

 

I think the snowmobilers are getting a hell of a deal or everyone else is getting the shaft. You would think the price would at least be the same for both user groups.

 

[JasonG]

Maybe in France. In America, special interests run this country, and that's the way we like it.

 

Seriously though, thanks for framing the issue. I may need to send an email also.

[sobo]

Yeah, me too. I never knew that motorized "sports enthusiasts" received such a cushie break as opposed to "motorless" sports enthusiasts...

[caverpilot]

A non-motorized Sno-Park permit costs $40 and a special groomed permit is an additional $40.

 

Wow! They are only $20 in Oregon, and are good at Washington Sno Parks as long as you have Oregon tags.

 

(For the record, I've been parking at Marble Mountain Sno Park (Mt. St. Helens) with an Oregon Sno-Park permit and Montana plates without issue for the last four years, which makes me think the rangers are more interested with the presence of a permit, not necessarily what tags are on the car)

 

Ozzy, the dog in the photo I posted above, is nominated as the offical spokesdog for the Occupy Sno-Barks movement

[Good2Go]

You're wrong about sledders not having to buy the special trail permit. Here's the relevant excerpt from the WA Parks site: "Special Groomed Trails Permits

This permit, in conjunction with the seasonal permit, is required at only the following eight sno-parks: Cabin Creek, Chiwawa, Crystal Springs, Hyak, Lake Easton, Lake Wenatchee, Mount Spokane and Nason Ridge. Snowmobile seasonal permit holders must purchase this sticker when using these Sno-Parks for non-motorized activities. (Funds from its sale pay for more frequent trail grooming at these Sno-Parks and the maintenance and replacement of snow grooming equipment owned by Washington State Parks.)"

Also, I believe the difference in cost between snomo and non-snomo permits is attributable to the fact that snomo grooming is 100% paid for out of snomo permit fees. Snomos can't use the areas groomed for non-motorized use, but non-motorized users can use all of the areas groomed for snomos (i.e., they "get more" for their permit dollar). I also think the number of non-motorized permits is significantly lower than the snomo permits, because the permit is included in annual vehicle registration and is not optional. I'm sure this won't assuage many of you from calling the state to complain about this astonishing injustice, but at least you won't be armed with mistaken assumptions.

[treknclime]

So, G2G, if snowmobiles don't use sno-parks for non-motorized use, they don't have to pay the grooming permit fee? That's how I would read what you quoted; am I correct?

 

Please also clarify, do snowmobiles pay an equivalent amount that non-motorized users pay? Based on what I'm hearing, is that non-motorized users pay $40 and snowmobile users pay either $30 or $12 (vintage). Is this correct?

 

And for all non-motorized users...if they use groomed areas, they pay an additional $40, over and above the seasonal sno-park fee. Correct?

 

I would agree...there are more snowmobile users than non-motorized users. I guess I can see them paying less, well sort of.

 

It doesn't make sense that 'vintage' machines pay less. They likely spew out more fumes and pollute the forest way more than new machines. The same would likely go for vintage cars, however, they for the most part operate in the city...where the expectation of clean fresh air seems to be lower.

 

Your argument that non-motorized users 'get more for their permit dollar,' because non-motorized users can use both non-motorized and motorized groomed areas is true, but I know many non-motorized users who refuse to use the motorized trails due to the air pollution caused by sled traffic. Even today, on a low usage day for all users, pollution settled into the forest into a dense fog. I tried skating through it just a few hours ago, but realized I didn't want to consume that bad air and become ill--so I turned back. So much for getting more for my permit dollar; my choice, I guess.

 

This has been an interesting thread. I hope users from both sides of the issue will contribute their knowledge and opinions on the topic to illuminate the relative issues and concerns.

 

TNC

 

[Ian Caldwell]

Fuel taxes from snowmobiles also pay into the program, that's why their fees are less.

[ilookeddown]

You are correct. The state gives percentage of the fuel tax that everyone pays by assuming that each registered machine uses 135 gallons a year. Here is how it is calculated: number of registered snowmobiles x .20 cents x 135 gallons. It comes to $27 per machine. Those funds are used for grooming, equipment, snow removal, enforcement, facilities, administration and 4% going into a reserve.

 

I am not against snowmobiles and have used them in the past but if I want to access the exact same Sno-Parks that they use it is still going to cost me $10 more a year. That is where I have an issue. If one can afford a jacked up F-350, a heated trailer and an $8k machine (sarcasm) they can afford to buy a separate Sno-Park permit. It should not be included in their registration fee that is less than a non-motorized user pays to access the same land.

 

Additionally why are the Department of Licensing and the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission entangled in this manner? How much of the registration fee goes to the DOL and how much goes to the WSPRC? On a $12 vintage machine registration they are probably losing money in administrative cost between the two of them.

 

[Seamstress]

The lot at Marble was clear on 1/1, though the rockfall was quite a nuisance on the road in. Submitted a complaint to the Winter Staff. Everyone is using just one side of the road to save their cars from damage.

 

Expect a war with some snowmobilers this winter. Many snow parks won't be accessible in SW Washington because of lack of plowing funds for Skamania to even access where the snowparks began to plow. So Marble and Cougar will be quite busy. THe last couple of years I have noticed increased conflict with snowmobilers. Excuse me - they come in with RVs pulling trailers and a truck and live in the parking lot for days. Why can't they conserve on space by hauling in their snomobiles with the truck and leaving their RV in the RV lot in Cougar OR camp on the snow like the climbers do? They slashed tires in recent years - including on the cars of the rescue team folks out training. I'm a little old lady and had some liquored up dude screaming at me for parking near the climber's route trail. This is just after we finished rescuing a snomoler who crashed and was severely injured. No, I don't have to park in the unplowed overflow lot.

 

 

 

 

[lightD]

If memory serves, the fuel tax based funding makes up around half of the money in the motorized winter recreation fund. Something north of $1MM I think. That fund is about double the non-motorized fund's size.

 

From the 2008 WA Parks Winter Recreation Strategic Plan:

 

The Sno-Park Program implemented in 1975 became the core of State Parks’ new Winter Recreation Program, now consisting of two administrative components, the snowmobile program and the non-motorized program, with separate funds supporting the cost of each program. The snowmobile program is funded from snowmobile registration fees and a percentage of the state gasoline tax. The non-motorized program is funded by the proceeds from Sno-Park parking permit fees. It is important to note for any proposed future changes in funding structures, that both programs were established by the Legislature to be financially self-supporting, using dedicated fund sources, without significant additional support from the Parks Commission. Changing the current funding model would require the concurrence of the Governor’s Office and the Legislature.

 

The funding is calculated annually based on a formula that's included in the RCW somewhere. So its guaranteed funding and it basically doubles the funds available for snowmobile oriented access vs. the non-motorized program funding. Its not really a question higher demand from motorized vs. non-motorized users driving the funding. The gas tax claw-back makes a big difference.

 

Glad to hear that the complaints seemingly made a difference.

[Seamstress]

We had some snow last week. The holiday weekend arrives and guess what? The road to Marble Mountain was unplowed. RVs, trailers, cars are stuck everywhere trying to get in for the nice new snow. We even had a one legged man out there pushing and shoveling to get in. The rescue team was in the filed all day Saturday, and some of us returned Saturday evening to find tha plow hard at work, 5 PM on Saturday. All the cars in the lot got buried by the plow. I am amazed that he hadn't done this right after the last storm and before the weekend.

 

BTW there are fewer sno parks open this year as some counties aren't plowing the roads that get close to the access roads. SO there should be plenty of funds to cover tha parks that are operating. Also this has been a low snow year thus far.

[Water]

smith butte snopark by mt adams, there is no funding to plow the road to it or it. chalk that one as outright closed for the year.

[Seamstress]

Aftyer I filed my complaint, I inquired about the contract requirements. This is what I received:

 

The contract generally requires that snow removal not commence until there are 6 inches of snow on the ground, and snow continues to fall. We try to avoid situations where snow has fallen, and rain is expected immediately thereafter. At least 2 inches of snow are to be left on the surface to avoid damaging the parking lot surface. Marble Mountain is a challenge every winter due to the extreme amounts of snow that can fall in a short period of time, and we have often cleaned off the lot, only to have it buried again with the next several hours. Due to budgetary limitations, we have to make the allotted dollars last as best we can through the entire winter season (December 1 through March 31). In the last couple of years we have worked with the two winter recreation advisory committees in an attempt to increase funding for areas like Marble Mountain that can receive large snowfalls. Unfortunately, the snowmobile program was forced to reduce snow removal for the 11/12 winter season due to severe budget reductions, and this has hampered our efforts to address problem areas.