Posted on 09/30/2007 8:18:14 AM PDT by george76
The self-described “Land of Many Uses” will likely have several fewer in the coming years as the U.S. Forest Service explores closing 10 amenities in northern Colorado.
The Forest Services employs the “Many Uses” slogan because national forests are home to logging, grazing, mining and recreational pursuits, but the point remains that the agency is the steward of public lands along much of the Front Range.
The list for closure includes five sites in Larimer and Boulder counties, including the Tom Bennett Campground on the north flanks of the Mummy Range, picnic areas along the North Fork of the Big Thompson River near Glen Haven, and two fishing sites ...
The sites themselves are not the showcase recreational opportunities in the region; what they are, however, are places to get away from the hustle and bustle of the Front Range, and at either no or very low cost.
In the case of the North Fork picnic areas, they are places where families with both young children and older adults can access the outdoors. The St. Vrain fishing sites are places where children can learn to enjoy the pursuit in a gentle environment.
As the Forest Service continues to look for ways to get people to use public lands, the solution shouldn’t be to reduce the number of amenities and funnel people to high-fee sites... That only increases crowding at those select sites and discourages future visits.
(Excerpt) Read more at timescall.com ...
.
Packing people into smaller areas is not good use of park space.
People like to go to remote areas to escape the people packing mentality.
The public is the steward of the land. The park service works for the people. So let the people decide!
Or is this some kind of UN, World Heritage Area compliance initiative? Probably so.
If the government wants to save money how about they close a few welfare offices intead !!!
The left has taken over many BLM and Forest Service local offices.
They love to close areas and close old roads under the title ‘no new roads.’
This is nothing new. Back in the 60's and 70's, they were on a jihad to get rid of miner's cabins, in case any hippies took a notion to squat there. Irreplaceable historic structures a hundred years old were burned or bulldozed to the ground, over the objections of preservationists.
They even went so far as to fill in springs and wells, and to cut down fruit orchards, to help deter the people who dared venture outside of their fee-charging paved RV parks. This was an unforgivable sin in the eyes of my grandfather, a former dry-range cattleman. He hated the Forest Service with a white-hot passion.
-ccm
If these people want to take their families and enjoy these amenities, they should be willing to pay for them. Like any other "free" good, a zero price almost always means they are over-consumed. In this case, over consumption means they become crowded. If they want them to be less crowded, charge an entry fee. And please...don't give me the "but-the-poor-people-can't-use-it-then" argument. Sorry, but that's one of the prices the poor have to endure because they didn't (or are unwilling to) invest in themselves. When the framers of the Constitution wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I don't recall them also writing that the poor get a free ride on the coattails of those who do work.
Personally, I'm tired of the whole idea of redistribution of any benefits from the productive members of society to the unproductive members. While there are notable exceptions (e.g., the handicapped), they are a damn sight fewer than the current list of freeloaders. Finally, if I have to take a drug test as part of my employment requirements, why don't those who get my tax money have to take a drug test to qualify for my tax money?
I guess I'm just pi$$ed off because I see all of the political candidates, Dimocrat or Republican, making promises to spend more and more of my money without a plan for how they're going to pay for it. More gov't...less freedom. Hint to politicians: I know how to spend my money better than you do!
(okay...I'm getting down from my soapbox...)
Cowboys ran their line camps all summer like sheep herders grazed their sheep since the 1800’s.
The forest service ‘vacated’ these historical allotments to appease the Sierra Club and their friends.
No more free range cattle, which makes the feed lots happy ...
Now the forest service is closing fishing holes, camping areas, hiking trails...
grrrr
With these public areas now closed to the public, then the beaurocrazies can keep these areas open to themselves.
They can build a fence, lock the gate with the combo number held by themselves...the cabins, etc. then are reserved for themselves without the taxpayers noticing.
I agree with one part of your argument, about having a rational price for the product, such as camping facilities, etc. However, the other piece is, rational prices can only happen in the free market. Otherwise, the government is just setting an arbitrary price (probably influenced by free market price benchmarks). The solution is for the government to sell all the land to the private sector. And except for a few libertarians, I don’t think most Americans would be happy about that.
Government-run programs are all about restrictions, shortages, limits, and coercion. By nature.
We pay taxes and the promise that came with those taxes is that we would have recreational opportunity within those “Public” National Parks.
There are already many fees associated with park users. That is in addition to the “taxes” we pay to support the National Park System.
Limiting access to areas is not reasonable if people are willing to venture off the beaten path. The Park is “Public”. There should be no reasonable explanation for limiting access to remote areas if the primary area is congested.
Obviously you have not stayed at a Park Campsite or you would know there are considerable user fees associated with the noisy, congested campsites. The reason for camping is to get away and get involved in nature. Not bring the rat race with you.
This is becoming “progressively” worse. First the feds take away State lands because they can. Then they force the public to pay for what was free. Now they close the lands to the public at all.
To START with, these lands should have never been taken in the first place. They are NOT federal lands, they are State lands, and to the individual States they should be returned.
While the western States are the ones most oppressed by these takings, how come almost no western State politicians stand up to demand their return? Sure they will say that they favor their return, but they never do anything about it.
Until these individual States start demanding their lands back, the feds will not only keep what they have taken, they will take more, and give nothing in return.
An unused forest is simply a giant tinderbox. It cost more to fight the wild fires than to manage the prudent use of the forest. This is much like the liberals putting out the fear scam of running out of oil and at the same time carteling our drilling for same. If we are not allowed to produce oil it is tantamount to running out of oil.
Now that we are moving to age where the government plans to tax every fart, can't have that.
Bread and circuses, where we are headed.
The states should push for these public lands to belong to the states or near-by towns...
Denver even has mountain parks :
http://www.denvergov.org/redirect_404/tabid/391191/Default.aspx?
Federal USFS land is NOT National Park land. It is working forest land. The 1897 Organic Act justifying the withrawal of timber lands from public settlement stated that the purposes for establishing the Forests in the first place were: (1) “a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of United States citizens;” and (2) securing favorable conditions of water flows. (In 1978, United States v. New Mexico, the court rejected claims that the Act established a third purpose for which forests could be created - “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries.”)Recreation is only a use added later and one of the many uses.
In 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act established the ability to manage the use of lands still open for settlement by the public and created grazing districts to control allotment use. Under FLMPA in the 1970s, Congress established that they intended to keep these lands in federal ownership under the management of the BLM
Currently, Congress has grossly underfunded the budget for the US Forest Service. To add to the problem, money is being diverted from the management budget each year to fight the huge forest fires that have come about from years of fire supression and non-management of the forest for spotted owls and other such ill conceived schemes. Last year, well over 20 million was spent in my district alone fighting fires. The year before, it was closer to $30 million.
The USFS wants income from the public to manage their camp grounds. Otherwise, they are required to lock it up and re-wild much of it - at least in the West.
Agree one hundred percent. You have grasp a major motive. The politicos, and their donors, will have the beauty.
Ted Turner does this nicely too.
Ted gets the forest service to vacate their allotments, the family rancher goes broke, Ted buys the place cheap, then builds a lodge for his Hollywood friends...
Will they be closing Tranquillity Base?
Liberals in Congress destroy the concept of ‘land of many uses’ to land of no use. There are about 3 million acres pending now ?
Liberals inside the forest service also manage public lands ‘as if’ Congress had acted. The local forest beaurocrazies close off public access even before their liberal friends in Congress act.
Truth is, I have stayed at a public campsite within a public park. I agree, the site was too crowded from my point of view. How about this for a solution. You have tiered pricing in the park. Zero price gets you into the crowded, but free, part of the park. If that's not what you like, pay a higher fee and you get into a less crowded part of the park. By having several tiers, you can let the consumer decide how much privacy they are willing to have. Tiered pricing is done all the time (e.g., music concerts), so why not let the consumer decide how much peace and quiet they want? The way it is now, you don't have a choice. The current system of one price buys whatever the status quo is for the park on that day. And most of the time, that isn't what you'd choose to have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.