.
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 !!!
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...)
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.
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.
Will they be closing Tranquillity Base?
Didn’t you know George this property doesn’t belong to you and I as taxpayers, it belongs to Forest Service employees and you better believe since they have the keys, literally, they and their families enjoy these areas once those gates are closed.
mark