Closing some of those parks is patently absurd.
It would take an army platoon to properly patrol Henry W. Coe- nevermind the inholdings that force them to keep the roads open in any case.

All this is doing is giving the cartels a safe place to grow pot.

Steve you obviously did not read the article, or all of the OP.

fedak wrote:Closing some of those parks is patently absurd.
It would take an army platoon to properly patrol Henry W. Coe- nevermind the inholdings that force them to keep the roads open in any case.

All this is doing is giving the cartels a safe place to grow pot.

The same is true for Annadel State Park in Santa Rosa. Why do I say "in Santa Rosa"? I do so because the park in almost completely surrounded by the city. There is no realistic way to close the park, since people have always accessed it from numerous non-state park controlled entrances. Again, closing something that is an integral part of a community like Annadel is a giant middle digit at the citizenry. It is insult to injury that they also closed all the other state parks in the area.

mrchad9 wrote:In the link provided the table says the costs exclude infrastructure, which is another 4.8 million and included on a seperate line.

5m out of a 315m budget. If you look at the details it's all long-term capital expenditures (i.e. 1.2m to the Truckee inspection station), not rent, utilities, contracted janitorial services, fuel and all the other expenses that go into running a department beyond salaries and benefits. Regardless, we're in total agreement that public land should remain open. Start by cutting the interpretive tours, lock the facilities if you have to (although porta potties and a trash dumpster cost squat), but closing the gate and paying LE rangers to cite trespassers is a middle finger to the citizens of this state who own the land. And as this incident shows, it doesn't actually keep the bad elements out.

Other States have closed parks with the intent to save money, which they possibly do in the short term. One notable example is Minnesota, where at least they had the candor to disclose the results. In Minnesota, the vandalism costs quickly exceeded whatever money was saved by closing the parks. Of course, paying to repair vandalism is in next fiscal years budget, or maybe the year after that. Unfortunately State parks are a pawn in a larger budget battle. Since the State of California is probably not going to be solvent for the foreseeable future, our State parks will be at risk for some time to come.

"Sorry, folks ... Park's closed ... the moose out front should have told ya ..."

Mitchell Caverns is kind of a tough place to get to, but well worth the effort. If you have to drive along Hwy 40, you might as well stop and see it.

A few other CA state parks that are 'closing':

Mono Lake Tufa Reserve - this will probably just revert to Federal control, since its surrounded by the Mono Lake (Federal) Preserve on three sides (and the lake on the other). Definately the best area around the Lake for visitors to get a close-up look at the tufa towers.

Jack London State Park - surprised this is closing since most of the park's land is leased out to wine grape growers. The houses and outbuildings are in a fairly compact area around the parking lots/entrance, and you can walk the dirt roads separating the grape fields to access the pond (a nice walk in the fall when the blackberry vines covering the fences are loaded with fruit!). The state could do a better job of signage on the nearby road to attract people - there's really none as you drive through the town of Glen Ellen, so its easy to miss the turn-off where you go up a hill to the park entrance.

California Citrus Park (Riverside, So Cal) - This was on the original list, but dropped off. Similar to Jack London State Park, its primarily covered in active citrus groves with only a small portion being used for a visitors center. It also has a small greenbelt area with a banquet hall that's leased out for weddings, banquets, etc. If this one isn't closing, it seems odd that Jack London State park is being closed.

I was recently told that port-a-potties actually cost quite a bit to maintain, at least they way they are handled by the national parks. Pit toilets seem to be preferred.

I recall that when AZ shut down some rest stops, it was revealed that stops cost over $320K/year to maintain -- electricity, water, and routine maintenance. Mitchell Caverns was shut down for the hot seasons, which undoubtedly would save a lot on electricity.

MoapaPk wrote:I was recently told that port-a-potties actually cost quite a bit to maintain, at least they way they are handled by the national parks. Pit toilets seem to be preferred.

I recall that when AZ shut down some rest stops, it was revealed that stops cost over $320K/year to maintain -- electricity, water, and routine maintenance. Mitchell Caverns was shut down for the hot seasons, which undoubtedly would save a lot on electricity.

I wonder if the guys that clean out and maintain the port-a-potty's get paid as much as the guys at the ag check points?

3Deserts wrote:

phydeux wrote:Mono Lake Tufa Reserve - this will probably just revert to Federal control, since its surrounded by the Mono Lake (Federal) Preserve on three sides (and the lake on the other).

Which, if true, makes me wonder why Mitchell Caverns doesn't just get absorbed in to the NPS, given that it's completely surrounded by the Mojave Preserve. It seems logical, but then, when jurisdictions and so forth of various agencies of various governments get involved, combined with the bequests of former private owners, charters, and who knows what else, who can say that logic might ever prevail?

There are probably legal issues, since the land was left to the state by the original owners. The law currently states that any state parks that were purchased or leased from the feds will revert to federal control if they are shuttered. Beyond that, the federal government has little authority to assume control of the parks. I wish that the Shasta-Trinity National Forest could take over Castle Crags State Park. The park is a complete joke, having nearly no portion of the Castle Crags in the park. It basically charges an entrance fee to hike on national forest property. It is closed now, so all it means is the campground is closed and people have to hike a little further from a different trailhead to get to Castle Dome. The whole thing is a farce.

I'm really sad to see Mitchell Caverns get cut... but actually, the free campsites near Granite Pass, or the cheap sites near Hole-in-the-Wall and Mid-Hills, are probably better if you want to attempt the Providence Mountains. You can even dry-camp near the eastern Mitchell "trail" head.

I think the most dramatic peak that one sees from Kelso Dunes is quite a bit lower. That NW side does look remarkable.

According to the last USGS map, the Mitchell TH I mention is well outside the state park boundaries, on BLM land. Edgar TH is in the state park, but a loop-around doesn't require a stay in the state land. I think I'd be inclined to spot a car there, though! The route to the S of Edgar is filled with spiky plants that are hard to avoid. There are lots of annoying washes that run ~N-S between the two, if you descend too low.

SeanReedy wrote:I just read this article that gave some good details on what it is taking to keep some of the parks on the closed list open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/25/efforts-continue-to-save-castle-crags-state-park/
.
.
Here's another recent thread in addition to the two related ones I see listed under related topics below:
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/budget-cuts-and-our-mountains-t60466.html

This article about Castle Crags provides more details about what is happening to keep parks open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/25/nonprofit-seeks-state-park/

As Bubba Suess mentioned, the actual state park portion of Castle Crags is probably of little interest to most climbers and peak baggers.

SeanReedy wrote:

SeanReedy wrote:I just read this article that gave some good details on what it is taking to keep some of the parks on the closed list open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/25/efforts-continue-to-save-castle-crags-state-park/
.
.
Here's another recent thread in addition to the two related ones I see listed under related topics below:
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/budget-cuts-and-our-mountains-t60466.html

This article about Castle Crags provides more details about what is happening to keep parks open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/25/nonprofit-seeks-state-park/

As Bubba Suess mentioned, the actual state park portion of Castle Crags is probably of little interest to most climbers and peak baggers.

Not to beat the horse into the sand but I am at least partially against a private concessionaire running the park. I applaud the efforts to keep it open and I think that in many other parks' cases it is a great solution. With the Castle Crags, it does not serve the long term problem, a problem there would be little motivation to solve if not for the current budgetary closures.

The bottom line is that the park actually DOES nothing except offer a campground. The only other draw are the trails and therein lies the problem with the park. All the trails save one do nothing but provide access to Forest Service land. None of them except the Sacramento Trail (a really cool trail if y'all have not been on it) go anywhere in the park. Rather, they all head into the Shasta-T. Consequently, the state park is nothing but a large tollbooth one must pay to get to land one does not have to pay for. It is a scam. Check out this map:



I think an ideal solution would be for the State Park to lease itself to the Forest Service for half the annual take the campground brings in. That way the State Park is making a little money and the Forest Service can make a small profit. All they have to do is maintain the campground. The benefit would be an appropriately free trail to Castle Dome.

A couple other, utterly tangential benefits would come from doing this. First, those with dogs on the PCT would be able to bring them on the trail through what was the state park. Secondly, and this is just an idea I have been mulling over, the Forest Services assumption of control of the state park would simplify a rerouting of the PCT to connect with the Sacramento River Trail. This would eliminate the PCT's crossing of the river on a road, crossing instead on a cool footbridge. It would also add a mile or so of easy but really scenic hiking along the Sacramento rather than passing through dense forest cover. Here is my proposed route, if anyone cares:


The current route of the PCT is red. My amended route is marked in blue.

mrchad9 wrote:

Marmaduke wrote:

cdog wrote:I love this State and the parks, but I do feel like State employees are paid too much. Taxes keep goin up to cover high-paid employees and retirement checks.

This isn't meant to detract from the OP but I wonder what those State employees are getting paid at the AG Check Points at our borders, waving their arms all day long for cars to proceed that they never even check?

$179 million per year, for 1281 positions.

http://2008-09.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/ ... tment.html

$13-15 per hour. Horribly overpaid, eh?

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/spbpay2rd.cfm