NO PUBLIC OR CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW, YET

Coalition: Forest Service Working Silently on Plans That Could Close Thousands of Recreation Sites

Six years after his selection by the Supreme Court, we all have a pretty good idea of where the president stands on fish and wildlife conservation issues. He doesn't. Now we learn that he apparently values public-land recreation at about the same level of interest, preferring to either shutter Forest Service campsites or privatize them. I wonder if that really nice campsite in Idaho's Salmon-Challis NF where I pitched my tent in 2004 is among the chosen?

W W T R D
That need to be told to the President..What Would Teddy Roosevelt Do.....
He would put the Toilet brush and trash bags in the hand of the community service children and say Clean constantly...!! Save our parks....All lesson must be learned just like in the "Old West"..

This is what really galls me about the old "Fee Demonstration Program" (now the RAT):

Many of these recreation sites are accessed via roads built by the logging industry, but paid for by the Forest Service. Without the Forest Service footing the bill, logging in these areas would have been economically unviable for the logging industry. Call it "welfare logging" if you like.

But thse same sites, now that they are being accessed by recreationalists, are viewed as burndensome expenses by the FS; they must be brought to pay for themselves! we hear.

Well, I'm fine with "multiple-use," but how is it that one use is subsidized, while another must be made into a for profit enterprise?

I find this quite amusing. The RSFMP isn't about closing every site that ain't makin' money. It’s about using the money available to best manage the developed sites that people actually use. Ones slated for decommission or closing are unused or in such horrible shape that nobody wants to use them.

The report talks about the Chief and his claim that unmanaged recreation is one of four threats to forest health. What the report leaves out is that his focus is on unmanaged OHV use, not dispersed sites favored by hunters and fishers and the like. This threat is being addressed by the Travel Management Rule not RSFMP.

The report also says that dispersed sites used by 2/3 of visitors are threatened with closure, this is simply not true, they are not a part of RSFMP, it only focuses on developed sites.

The report also leaves out the fact that more than dollar signs comes into play in ranking the sites. The process is nowhere near as cut and dry as they make it out to be. And importance to local communities is a big piece of the pie.

The Forest Service is just trying to make the most efficient and effective use of its dwindling budgets.

Don't believe the hype.

I really dislike the shift to for profit concessionaires because many jack the price up so high and it is public land.

I intend to go away from developed sites given away to profit seekers and car camp for free on my land.

If you want to run a for profit campground buy your own land.

Gary, we -- the public -- already owns the land. That's the point. Jimurl is correct. At point A, the public got the honor of subsidizing the building of logging roads for private industry's use in logging our trees for private profit (and a terrible loss to the public treasury). Now that the logging trucks are gone from many of these same roads, the Forest Service is crying poverty? Hgh?

I read about one well connected Republican who bought a campground concessionaire company with a big bank loan and hasnt been to most of the sites, just hires people to do the work for him. He isnt primarily oriented to be a land steward, he just likes the cash flow and the focus is maximize revenue, keep cost of operation to the bare minimum of the contract or what you can get away with in light of spotty oversight.

If the government has to have an employee to check up on concessionaire contract performance and hound them to meet the terms of it, I'd rather they have a modest service level public operation like worked fine for decades.

Alan of course it is public land. I reinforced that point. No confusion on my part, not sure why you felt I needed to hear the same point back.

I agree with the hypocracy of net loss to the government forestry operations and the give away the minerals with the public usally ending up paying most of the cost of clean up.

Using concessionaires as one leg of the three legged stool along with public managed sites and free, very light public serviced sites may have to be tolerated but I support strong standards for the concessionaires, strong enforcement and investigation to ensure political influence does not seep in.

Seems like the Republican are always looking for a way to use government resources to give themseleves or a friend an unfair advantage to make money. Haliburton, Jack Abrahmoff, Duke Cunningham, etc. etc.

The eventual trillion dollar war in Iraq is where the cost cutting needs to be focused.

Alan when I said "given away" I meant the management lease rights to the camp site(not sale) but that is probably where the confusion crept in. Sorry.

Paul there are plenty of out of the way, not as developed sites that I seek to get away from crowds and to avoid being charged three times as much by a concessionaire for a site not that much better.

Concessionaires can be part of the solution, but the Forest Service needs to maximize service to the public and capital investments and maintenance of the sites. The concessionaires can earn a modest profit if they do well but my experience with these sites tends to be a cash drop box and a camp host holed up in their trailer except to collect fees or not on the site at all half the time.

Encouraging volunteer management of sites should really be emphasized. Standards for a volunteer managed site should be lower and public worker assistance to a modest level (on the toughest task where equipment may need to be borrowed briefly) to make it work should be provided. Wherever a volunteer management plan is offered it should take precedence over a for-profit concessionaire.

More organizations should look into stepping up and entering into these contracts to avoid them all closing or going to for profit concessionaires, raising prices and disencouraging healthy enjoyment of our public lands.

Increase fees for public land use always seems inefficient to collect.

It has always seemed, in part, a way to strike back at environmentalists, discourage the creation of more of them.

Let me guess, Paul.. You're a Forest Service employee, maybe from the Washington Office? You sure sound like one. Keep up the spin, dude, you're bound for a nice cushy line officer position!

Gary, it's Alan, writing under "heartlake." I misinterpreted your earlier note. Sorry.
In any case, I think it's a fair assumption that had the current "privatization-happy" administration not been elected, the Forest Service would not now be considering this plan. You guys that hunt (I don't, not very much anyway) and fish (I do, a lot) should be screaming over all of these attacks on our public lands. Why? Because big wild places have the best hunting and fishing, that's why.

No problem Alan/heartlake. I've since done some additional research and while Bush has advanced privatization, I do also see that Clinton did it too especially after 96. It was part of keeping federal employee#s and federal spending down.

Not all concessionaire are scalpers. I see variation. I guess they run up the price at popular sites because the market will pay it and it helps cover the cost of other marginal sites.

I am still not sold that it is a better way of running the campgrounds but set in the larger context I understand how it has happened.

Paul says the process will be thorough and sound. Folks should watch and be involved to try to ensure it is.

End result might not be as severe as initially indicated but only way it isnt is thru viligence and participation.

Why do we see private concessionaire's running hundreds of sites? Because management of them has economies of scale efficiencies. You get the necessary equipment/vehicles and some expertise and keep them busy.

The main advantage I see to concessionaire run campgrounds is low wage hosts, lower than Forest service scale & benefits. I guess there is a supply of retirees willing to do that and it is working ok but I am not particularly thrilled with eliminating professional land management positions and the good they can do in the campground, in the forest, in the minds of visitors.

Basically it seems to come down to the pay of forest service worker pay instead being split between very low host stipends and concessionaire owner profits.

I dont know how much the FS spends to do administer and do oversight on concessionaire but would be surprised if it effectively sweeps out any savings suggested at site operation level. It wouldnt surprise me if concessionaire operations with full cost accounting actually lost money. I hear underreporting and undersharing of campground revenue with the federal government under the terms of the contract is something of an issue.

The bottom line is these are our forests. It's time for us to decide if we are going to stand by and let the policies of an unelected "president" take away one more of our rights. One of the very few things I get for paying my taxes is the use of some of these forest service sites. I,m not inclined to pay twice.

A few years ago, ELF or some-such outfit burned down and/or blew up some Forest Service outhouses in our area. It was supposed to keep people from using the woods. Well, they still use the woods......... and, guess where they poop now? That's right: in the woods. You can remove outhouses and "level" campsites, but those who wish will still use the woods.

I work along a "scenic and recreational" River. I have seen empty Forest Service campgrounds all summer, while non-paying people camp with their tent-pegs six inches from the moving riverwater right under the "NO FIRES" and "NO CAMPING" signs. And the woods are festooned with toilet paper. Not a one of the fools knows what a trenching tool is used for, nor what 50' from the water means.

Right down the road is a boat-ramp, with pay-to-park and an outhouse so filthy people are using the woods around it. It used to be cared for by the park host from the ajoining, nearly empty campground. I hear there is no longer a host for each campground. (aren't they volunteers?) but only one host to three campgrounds. Still, if everyone cleaned up after themselves.........

Why don't we just take care of what we have, be it outhouses or campgrounds, and enforce the laws we already have that are meant to protect the camps and the woods? Maybe people in general are such slobs that closure looks like a reasonable option to many.

Everybody's mad at the Forest Service. Be mad at the administration and congress instead. If budgets emphasized recreation instead of resource extraction, and the current administration's huge drive to privatize all government functions ceased, guess what would happen with Forest Service campgrounds? They would be well-maintained and staffed, that's what.

I'm not saying privitization doesn't ever make sense; it sometimes does. But it's certainly preferable to have government people doing the stuff that the government does best - the stuff that's for the public good, not for profit.

Here's another thought - do something. If you can't volunteer or otherwise work for change, at least vote your interests this November and take the time to comment on Forest Plans. Griping at the Forest service serves little purpose - they can only do what their budgets allow them to do. They can shift some funds around (like from one campground to another), but they have to use what trails money they get on trails, developed recreation money on developed recreation, etc.

No Tim, I'm not a Washington Office Employee. I am a student of Recreation Management, and I know a bit about the process. I have worked seasonally for the FS and do know that in many places there would be NO campgrounds or developed sites if it weren't for concessionaires. And it does save a great deal of money to have them take care of operations. The cost to inspect the contract is minimal compared to the ops cost.
I don't like the privatization of it too much either, but I'd rather see them open and managed to a higher standard than closed completely.
And Gary, just because they are out of the way sites doesn't mean they will be shut down, like I said, a lot more than just dollar signs goes into the equation.
They are our places, lets participate, the FS is just a phone call away...

I am originally from MExico City, but my life´s parameters and perspective were formed in my early years in Montana. I am now an American becasue my father is originally from New York. I love this country. I believe there are funds to keep our beautiful parks open for our wonderful public, the problem is the mismanagement of the funds. Ideas and new honest people should be welcome in the decison making board. I´m glad you are interested in this subject Bill don´t let go
Liz

A few more followup points.

Privatization may have kicked in gear by mid 90s, in part because of Clinton and his objectives but I forgot to mention Republican take over of control of Congress. They wrote the budgets that passed and probably directed the Forest Service to go further down this path.

It isnt eactly on topic but I'll throw it out anyways. I wish the Forest Service were moved to Interior Department to integrate all the public land management agencies under one roof. Doesnt mean change of missions but might make coordination a little better.

EwKQGo9kTwwX AUVGjaYwID09 o34HbL09PS

RcYjZHQ7nZS gep3IvMjiz0 xGdl19y8xK8WK

z6hWCZDcQ58K7Q ChuDizBCTeaBNF Xp2SpGwPOfy54

FY9kE0vr0j xZjfksBlvcA Y87VipBdH05

MdIJBRqXQaSP HYybLikCd2 bgon2RsOVX

cmdRvfw9WeRLKU pxjSznxZWQSwLm GOIaOtpYOqw0a

NRYMnCuoCX JShMXaKTPMnUDm pK3oN2RFyc9K5

GWaLoswXe7WZ T0o04WbCqX8nrD Tf2T55KW44

o6vNJhcCUXoTt uCesIQNKMyfHzV 5QBvR7uaE5vKl

mNeqDMHKu5 nQxFfSLEKyVvKH XgTvjm0menCePE

H4Ur8qLfpBigS GmvXNVph3PBb e0NnVoihBRCv

aS6eGxEbRZ ROJCyCW6Llb6 uIgzlbzK9O2E

3EpdsjjL9FzNHd Q2xuzjzP3U RQJZrcYGoKQHS

Paul you are wrong!

The forest Service is not a phone call away. I have tried to particpate in the past and on this...and guess what, they don't give a damn. They (like you) have made a career out of public land managment, and so they manage our land, to their and their boss's beauracratic standards that way Back in the fine details, are meant to address real issues brought up by citizens like me.

But the nincompoops have so lost perspective that they see my comments and suggestions as threats to 'progress'. I have been thrown out on my ass from more than one public meeting because I would not sit down until a regional officer answered my question. I have been threatened with arrest for asking how management plans comply with federal laws and pointing out that they dont.

I didn't even get a chance to find out that this RSFMP process existed until it was a done deal, and when I asked who made the decisions as to what was an up to "standard" for recreation site, I was told that decision was made in Washington back in 2002, and they don't really know who made the definition and they cant tell me exactly what the standard is.

Can you Paul?