Much has been said and debated about the inability of BLM to receive State of California OHV Grants. While some have their opinion, I'd like to share "the rest of the story".

In the past few months I've been talking with some of the OHV leadership, mostly from CORVA, about this "problem" BLM is having with the OHV Commission regarding funding. It seems that I'm getting similar answers from these folks.

Seems as if BLM, like Vicki has stated many times before, refuses to be accountable and disclose:

(1) Total Appropriated Funds for motorized recreation from Congress to a given Field Office vs. what the Field Office actually received. Seems as if the "bean counters" in Washington DC are "re-allocating" the Appropriated Funds from given areas, and sending the same to other areas around the State and Country.

(2) The total funds received from (a) Appropriated Funds and "received" Funds, (b) "Green Sticker Funds, © and to some degree, Fee Demo funds.

(3) BLM refuses to disclose how much money is spent, per Field Office, as a total in the California Desert District, and State Office totals.

In any business transaction where money is to be loaned or granted to a person or business, it is common that that entity provide some basic information such as, source of income, expenditures, and what the vision for the future is. But I’m told that BLM wants to come to the granters of the monies and not provide a reasonable accounting such as the above.

As the keepers of the funds that are held in Trust for the OHV recreationist. I offer that it is the duty of the OHV Commission/Division to ask for and receive answers to these simple questions.

I'd say it's past time to contact your Congressperson and ask them to contact BLM requesting these numbers. Be sure to have them "cc" Congressman Bill Thomas, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Richard Pombo, Chair of the House Interior Committee.

I agree that the blm should be able to share it's income/expense data openly, and with any legal, U.S. citizen who asks. After all, it IS our money. HOWEVER, it is also WRONG for the OHV commission to withhold funds for a well established rec area that is highly patronized by California green sticker vehicles. That's OUR money as well. The two wrongs do not cancel out.

I have mixed feelings. I think we should get a bigger share. The problem though is just like APHANTUMDUCK says; No accountability by the BLM. Hell, they can't even account for the money they are getting now. Until then, I don't know if giving them more money that they may or may not waste and definitly won't have good accounting for, isn't a good idea.

APHANTOMDUCK Posted on Feb 9 2004, 07:18 PM

There is a way to grant monies to legitimate OHV groups to perform a service, unless the legislation was changed from a few years ago. Getting the agency such as BLM to permit this type of management function is the problem though.

One of the fundamental roles government agencies play is that of "kingdom builders". They feed on public funds and usually deliver less than what the pubic desires. Any attempt to bring the monster under some sort of control is deemed a vicious act and is met with the usual "sky is falling" rhetoric.

The new tactic is to threaten closure or a reduction in use of a particular area if their financial extortion demands are not met. Then blame the OHV Commission.

The OHV Fund was NEVER intended to provide such a large portion of the budget for an area; it was intended as a SUPPLEMENT!

Ever see an agency do anything other than grow with their financial demands? If indeed the BLM has nothing to hide here; then why do they refuse to open up the books? Isn’t this one of the things the voters here in California like about the campaign promise of Arnold?

There has to be a loop hole somewhere here. We need to find it.

I agree BLM needs to be accountable and the numbers need to be as true to fact
as possible.

Nothing squewed. (spelling?)

Wait am I dreaming here???

I agree totally with SANDWIZARD. We need more pads and space!

I get real nervous that the commission will release more money, to go to more conservations efforts rather than maintenance or building out there.

Cathi~
DUNERS, Sectry.
"The Warden"