Welcome to SP!  -   
 
 MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking!
Areas & Ranges·Mountains & Rocks·Routes·Images·Articles·Trip Reports·Gear·Other·People·Plans & Partners·What's New·Forum

 Forums Home > Colorado > Thread

Forest Service to Close Thousands of Recreation Sites in CO?

[ Start New Topic | Reply to This Topic ] All times are GMT  Pages: 1, 2  
 Author Topic: Forest Service to Close Thousands of Recreation Sites in CO?
Scott


Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 6065


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:08 pm GMT  Quote
 
WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE COALITION
P.O. Box 135, Durango, CO 81302
www.westernslopenof ee.org

More information:
Robert Funkhouser 802/235-2299 rfunk9999@earthlink .net
Kitty Benzar 970/259-4616 wsnfc@earthlink. net


REPORT CHARGES FOREST SERVICE WITH PLANNING TO CLOSE THOUSANDS OF
RECREATION SITES
Policy Adopted In Secret Requires Developed Sites To Pay Their Own
Way Or Close

The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition today released a six-page research report on a secret Forest Service Policy that could result in thousands of recreation site closures nationwide. The report charges that since at least 2002, the USDA-Forest Service has been secretly implementing a policy nitiative called Recreation Site Facility Master Planning, or RSFMP, that teatens to impose a for-profit model on the management of America's ational Forests.

RSFMP mandates that every National Forest inventory all its developed recreation sites and rank them compared to a National Required Standard. Those that do not measure up will be closed or "decommissioned" (obliterated) . The closures would affect mainly simple, remote facilities favored by local residents, hunters, fishermen, and others who prefer
dispersed and minimally developed recreation sites. Forest Service visitor statistics indicate that such visitors make up almost two-thirds of all Forest users. On the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests in western Colorado, up to 100 of 138 sites are slated for closure. That's 72% of all recreation sites!

No public or congressional review of the RSFMP policy has yet occurred. Although 22 Forests have completed 5-Year RSFMP site closure plans and implementation has begun, none of the plans have been publicly released. As part of their research, the No-Fee Coalition was able to obtain two complete plans and partial information about three more. From the data available so far they project that between 3,000 and 5,000 recreation sites will be closed or decommissioned, and as many as 4,000 more will be converted to fee
sites or turned over to private for-profit concessionaires to manage.

"The RSFMP program is going to send shockwaves through National Forest gateway communities nationwide," said WSNFC President Robert Funkhouser. "This will impact local communities' economies, public health, and quality of life." Funkhouser points out that among the management actions planned or already underway are removal of toilets, capping of drinking water systems, and bulldozing of campsites.

The Report questions Forest Service claims that plummeting recreation budgets are the impetus and justification for RSFMP. It shows that much of the funding appropriated for recreation by Congress never makes it to the local Forest managers. Instead, the Report charges that it is policy decisions, not budgets, which are driving the site closures.

"A serious reality gap exists between what the Forest Service is claiming is available to the Forests in the way of appropriated funds from Congress for developed recreation and what Congress is actually appropriating, " said Funkhouser. "As implementation of the RSFMP unfolds, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is intended to be the vehicle for
reducing or eliminating undeveloped and dispersed recreation, the very kind of recreation favored by almost two-thirds of visitors. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has identified this type of use as a threat. Those less developed, more remote, and dispersed sites and areas are the ones that are unprofitable and subject to closure."

In the report's Conclusion, the No-Fee Coalition calls on Forest users to demand that the RSFMP 5-Year Plans be subjected to public comment and review as specified in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They also call for Congress to scrutinize the program, and for an audit of Forest Service recreation spending compared to appropriated funds.

"It is imperative that this secret policy see the light of day," concluded Funkhouser. "This is a drastic change to National Forest recreation management that should not be allowed to proceed behind closed doors."

The Recreation Site Facility Master Planning report (pdf) can be read at www.westernslopenof ee.org

The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition is a national organization based in Durango, Colorado that has called for repeal of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). The FLREA allows the Forest Service, BLM, and Bureau of Reclamation to charge access and user fees on vast tracts of publicly-owned land.
Foxy Long Bottoms


Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 883


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:51 pm GMT  Quote
 
Go figure. The Bureaucrats can't keep me out no matter what they do.
Jack B


Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 217


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:05 pm GMT  Quote
 
Why bulldoze campsites? Why not just leave them be?
RyanS


Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 1556


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:07 pm GMT  Quote
 
What does "decommissioning" entail?

I read that the Gold Creek Campground by Henry Mountain and Square Top Mountain was decommissioned this year, but I don't think it's stopped anyone from hiking around there (or camping, for that matter).
Scott


Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 6065


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:43 pm GMT  Quote
 
Quote:
What does "decommissioning" entail?


From what I've seen around here, it usually means toilets removed, and gates put up on the roads. I've never seen one actually bulldozed (I'm not the one who wrote this, but trust the person whom sent it to me-Steve Ramrass whom is involved). However, giving them all to a for profit private company does seem very concerning.
thoth


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 1943


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:46 pm GMT  Quote
 
More Brainard Lake areas for everyone. Charge for access, close em down with a gate when it stops being profitable. I've said before the FS is not on our side. Scott-What's your take on a useful response by hikers/climbers? I'm happy to contribute time/money.
Andy


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 1861


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:11 pm GMT  Quote
 
I work with Forest Service people all day, every day - so I suppose I have a sympathetic bias towards these folks. However, natural resource management is a pretty low priority right now for your tax dollars. We keep spending more in the Middle East and on homeland security, and we keep cutting taxes. If there is no money to maintain these areas then what is the FS supposed to do? Seems to me they have two options: close the areas, or hand them over to a private for-profit company to run and manage. People whine and cry about both options, but what are you going to do?

My post on 14ers.com almost exactly mirrors Ryan's here. Who gives a crap if the Forest Service shuts down a few campsites and picnic areas? If we can't afford to maintain them, then this is the fiscally responsible thing to do. What would upset me is if they prevented access to public land - that would suck. If they "decommissioned" the Brainard Lakes area permanently gated it down closer to the main road that would be no big deal to me. Really, that means no more fees or crowds! It just takes a little more energy to get back there. It's not like they "closed" that section of IPW - the just closed the amenities (including the road).
thoth


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 1943


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:19 pm GMT  Quote
 
Andy-FS people have tossed around the idea of 1 allowed route up popular peaks among other birlliant restrictive ideas.

The wilderness is there for everyone from the most casual dayhiker to craziest climber. Secret agendas by an organization with little concern for the users shouldn't dictate my access. If all they do is remove things and leave the rest alone then fine but I really doubt that's what we'll see over the next decade.
Scott


Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 6065


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:21 pm GMT  Quote
 
Quote:
We keep spending more in the Middle East and on homeland security, and we keep cutting taxes. If there is no money to maintain these areas then what is the FS supposed to do? Seems to me they have two options: close the areas, or hand them over to a private for-profit company to run and manage? People whine and cry about both options, but what are you going to do?


That's just it Andy. The administration can spend billions on protecting and arming hostle countries that hate our guts (and have for decades), then takes the eye off the ball and attack the wrong country while costing us billions, and then back home there is not enough money to use for us taxpayers for recreation. Evil or Very Mad

Quote:
If we can't afford to maintain them, then this is the fiscally responsible thing to do. What would upset me is if they prevented access to public land - that would suck
.

How about charging an exhorborant amount from privatization.

I'll use my Grand Canyon permit as an example. I am going backpacking with one four year old and myself for three nights on an unmaintained trail. I have to pay $65 to be there legally, but the trail isn't even maintained. What could the private industry charge, or the government for that matter if the law above was past. $65 is already enough to hike a trail, and one that isn't even maintained on top of that.
Scott


Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 6065


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:25 pm GMT  Quote
 
Quote:
Andy-FS people have tossed around the idea of 1 allowed route up popular peaks among other birlliant restrictive ideas.


Worse than that, many areas in National Parks have been closed to all users via any route. Evil or Very Mad
DudeThatMustHurt


Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 3777


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:27 pm GMT  Quote
 
Go ahead bull doze them, forget they were even there. Keep all of the RV'rs at Lake Dillion
Aaron Johnson


Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 3451


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:03 pm GMT  Quote
 
It is unfortunate for those who might go out and casually camp for one night a year at such a facility. Dillon and other popular spots (otherwise read: that make money) will simply get more populated.

As long as access is not a problem, that's okay. HOWEVER, I would suspect that some of these closures would limit access to people who (a) use such sites, (b) or due to a physical condition, this type of site is all they are able to access. Such folks may feel discriminaed against and rightfully so. They pay taxes like we do. They should be allowed to enjoy the outdoors their way. The National Forests aren't just for climbers and hikers, so they would have a legitimate gripe.

This might get ugly once the word gets out. Even though privitization doesn't affect most of us hikers and climbers, it does affect a considerable amount of the populous, and the economic impact on the affected local areas could be significant. It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

My opinion on privitization and fee programs: Bad idea. Absolutely sucks. ALL tax paying Americans have already paid their taxes and should not have to pay a concessionaire or anyone else any more to use THEIR public land.
RyanS


Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 1556


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:36 pm GMT  Quote
 
I have absolute disdain for the privatization of our public lands. It seems utterly contrary to the idea of public lands in general. I realize the money's not there, but that's a funding problem. We shouldn't outsource our public lands to some corporate entity just because Congress won't fund the FS. There needs to be other solutions. No one should be making money off of people going to visit lands that are owned by all of us.

I have equally high disdain for the privatization of our prison system and sending independent contractors to Iraq (who are paid better than our soliders) so that the number of troops over there doesn't look as large, but that's a topic for P&P.... Rolling Eyes
thoth


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 1943


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:36 am GMT  Quote
 
Amen to everything above.
Deleted User


Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 16777186


[ Profile | PM ]
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:09 pm GMT  Quote
 
871 days 12 hours 50 minutes 20 seconds.
Display posts from previous:   
[ Start New Topic | Reply to This Topic ] Pages: 1, 2  


 
Jump to:  




© 2006 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.