The appended (condensed) article is about a proposed billion dollar theme park in Las Vegas. It will be constructed upon private land using private funding. It has nothing to do with public lands, or the management thereof --- or does it???

These days we hear much about declining visitation to America's National Parks. We are told that our great outdoors and iconic parks are becoming "IRRELEVANT" to today's youth.

Suggestions are being put forth, telling us that it is necessary to reshape and reconfigure our National Parks in order to make then places of fun so they can better compete in today's globalized tourism market. What does that mean???

The appended article has much to do with the public lands and the management thereof ---  the connection, however, can be easily missed.

Scott

The following article describes a Judge's ruling which, in effect, makes it illegal to float/boat upon navigable waters in the US. And, as most states have laws that say that if a river is navigable in fact, then it is navigable in law ... this ruling will, more or less, end public boating on rivers.

Will it stand?  Let's hope not.

I couldn't help but wonder whether this judge was a graduate of the Libertarian training program for Federal judges operated by the folks at FREE . This is massive privatization by judicial action.

Scott

Did you know that the National Park Service charges a fee for scattering of ashes ???  They do.
 
Imagine waiting in the queue at Mt. Rainier's information desk and when you got your turn to (presumably) ask for a map or directions to the snack bar, you looked the volunteer straight in the eye, told her you wanted to scatter the remains of your mother (pointing to the shoebox under your arm) and asked her to please sell you a permit.
 
Actually, if you make that mistake .... you'd probably be to return to the park some other time.
 
To scatter ashes at Mt. Rainier, you will need to apply for a special use permit at least 4 days in advance. You will need to provide your name, address and Social Security Number plus a cashiers check or money order for $25.  (see below)
 
To learn more and or to download the "Scatting Ashes" permit application, go to http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/general/ashes.htm
 
Scott

Last week a federal judge, in effect, found the USFS guilty of breaking the law. The Forest Service had been charging forest visitors fees for parking, walking and picnicking --- and doing so in violation of clearly written prohibitions upon charging for precisely such things.

After being caught in so flagrant and act of disrespect of the people of this nation, the Forest Service might have shown a little humility. They might, for instance, have apologized to all of the forest visitors whom they defrauded and from whom they extracted a fee without having the authority to do so.

Unfortunately that's not what they are doing.  The PR machine is spinning a mile a minute and articles such as the one which appears are already starting to fly off the printing presses and go out over the radio waves. The Forest Service is, so it does appear, threatening to get even with the public. They are threatening to close down facilities and shut people out of the forest altogether.

Something is wrong.  Something is severely wrong.

Scott

An important court case was decided in Tucson Arizona last week, one that will likely have major repercussions. A woman was ticketed by the USFS for failure to pay a recreation fee. The judge did not merely find the woman innocent, he found the USFS guilty. I've made the judge's ruling available on the Wild Wilderness website and am providing here a condensed version of the full article which appears below.

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 09.13.2006
U.S. judge's ruling could end forest user fees

A federal magistrate's ruling could end, or scale back the scope of, the $5 daily user fees charged on Mount Lemmon and in Sabino and Madera canyons.

The case could set a national precedent, possibly ending fees in other national forests around the country, said the chief Forest Service official for the Mount Lemmon-Sabino Canyon area.

Magistrate Charles Pyle ruled that the Forest Service went beyond its congressional authorization when it charged fees for parking to use a trail, for roadside or trailside picnicking, for camping outside developed campgrounds and for roadside parking in general.

The federal government hasn't decided whether to appeal the ruling. But if the ruling stands, it appears that the Forest Service will have to charge fees only for use at specific sites — not for driving up the mountain and parking at certain areas, as it does now.

Opponents of the fees both locally and nationally call Wallace's case a landmark.

--

Scott

WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE COALITION P.O. Box 135, Durango, CO 81302
www.westernslopenofee.org

More information:
Robert Funkhouser 802/235-2299 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Kitty Benzar 970/259-4616 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

FEDERAL COURT FINDS ARIZONA FOREST SERVICE FEE PROGRAM IS ILLEGAL

Hiking and Parking Fees Are Not Authorized In Fee Law

A mild-mannered, churchgoing, Tucson legal secretary has pulled the legal rug out from under a major Forest Service fee program, and potentially from hundreds of similar programs nationwide.

When Chris Wallace decided to fight the two tickets she received last September for going on backcountry hikes on Mt Lemmon without displaying a $5 access pass on her parked car, the Forest Service got more than they bargained for. With the help of California attorney Mary Ellen Barilotti, she challenged whether the Forest Service has legal authority to charge the fee.

On September 5, United States Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle agreed with Wallace. He dismissed both her tickets because the Mt Lemmon fee does not meet federal requirements. The Court found that:

-    The legal prohibition on fees for certain activities applies even within a High Impact Recreation Area

-    The Forest Service does not have authority to charge a fee for parking along roads, or for undeveloped, minimally developed or semi-developed sites

-    The Forest Service has no authority to charge fees for trails, trailsides, or developed trailheads

-    The agency is prohibited from charging for camping at undeveloped sites.  

<CONTINUES>

Perhaps I'm easily offended.  I am, admittedly, one of the few wilderness activists who speaks disparagingly of 'Leave No Trace' accusing them of being a recreation industry booster that serves to shift the focus of management discussion from "wilderness character" to "biophysical resource impacts." I actively oppose the supposed wilderness legislation known as "CIEDRA", accusing it of being an Economic Development and Wreckreation Act .

Within Wilderness I would no more welcome being casually approached (without damned good reason) by someone wearing a uniform, than I would welcome being attacked by blood-sucking mosquitoes.

As for large groups in Wilderness, the biggest problem with large groups is their size.  Much like LNT shifts the discussion from solitude to impact, there are some who shift the discussion from group size to group behavior.

For the past 15 years, I've headed an organization that thought it necessary to say the word "Wild" before the word "Wilderness"  -- which some think is most odd.  I find it appropriate to put Wild before Wilderness and find it increasingly necessary to do so with every passing day. 

Pasted below are the first paragraphs of what I found to be an unusually offensive article that addresses the issue of how we can all be more "responsible wilderness tourists." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wilderness really isn't the place for tourists nor should Wilderness be turned into a place such a place --- as many now suggest.

Scott

 "In short, the very scarcity of wild places, reacting with the mores of advertising and promotion, tends to defeat any deliberate effort to prevent their growing still more scarce." --Aldo Leopold

 

 

 

The Wild Wilderness Raceway exists.

This logo is real.

 

 

Yesterday the American Recreation Coalition issued a news release that began with these words:
 
http://www.funoutdoors.com/node/view/1621

Washington, D.C. – More than 80 organizations recently wrote to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior calling for an inquiry into why the national park system is failing to provide the American public with the appropriate level of visitation to meet the nation’s mental, physical and spiritual needs.

 The ARC did not give further details.

Through contacts within the Department of Interior I have obtained the text of ARC's letter to Secretary Kempthorne as well as the list of organizations that have assembled themselves under the ARC's umbrella in an effort to interfere with how our National Parks are managed.
 
I've provided that information below and encourage you to read what these special interest groups have just said to their long-time friend, Mr. Kempthorne.
 
I will just add  that I was pleased to discover that the list of names contains only the usual group anti-parks trouble-markers. Most of these organizations are ARC members. Many of them are, I suspect, the same people with whom Paul Hoffman worked in his attempt to rewrite NPS management policies so as to throw the parks open to unfettered commercialization, privatization and motorization.
 
Scott 

 PS... After making this post, the ARC put the original letter online at http://www.funoutdoors.com/files/kletter.pdf where it can now be viewed 

[Several states, including Iowa and Arkansas, reported that attempts to charge park entrance fees met with such public opposition that they were discontinued.]

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.   -Thomas Jefferson

The American Recreation Coalition are not happy campers. Last year they came within an inch of re-writing the mission of the National Park System when Paul Hoffman introduced their preferred version for new NPS Management Policies. Fortunately, the American people refused to go along, and the ARC was handed a major setback.

As you will see below, American Recreation Coalition is now prepared to fight the American People.

Mind you, the American Recreation Coalition has been fighting the American People for over two decades. Unfortunately, until recently, the American People just never had a clue what the ARC was doing to them.

Scott

PS... additional information is available on ARC's website at http://www.funoutdoors.com/node/view/1611 

Last summer I participated in a study of visitor perceptions related to experiences within the popular and increasingly crowded Three Sisters Wilderness which is located 20 miles from where I live. The title that has been given to the newly published report is:

 Attitudes and Changes in Attitudes about Visitor Management at the Green Lakes/South Sister Area of the Three Sisters Wilderness: A Study of Four Stakeholder Involvement Meetings in Oregon

At the time, I viewed the study as an effort designed to give the USFS justification for managing Wilderness to standards lower than are required by law. I also thought the session seemed oddly designed to test how easily attitudes about wilderness could be swayed by the persistent, repetitive, imposition of propaganda by the researchers.

Today I read the report and my original misgivings were confirmed.

The newly released study can be read at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs7/Stakeholder.pdf

This new study is one of several related wilderness studies. Here is a link to the series. http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/F007_B.htm

The Three Sisters Wilderness study came to the general conclusion that Wilderness visitors are diverse bunch of poorly informed recreationists whose opinions about Wilderness management are remarkably labile under pressure.

As a study in sociology, this has significant value. As a study with applicability to Wilderness management, I found little of any value.

Wilderness management is governed by law. Fortunately (for now, at least) law is not as labile as were the opinions of those who participated in this survey.

Scott

   It behooves us then to do two things: First we must see that an adequate system of wilderness areas is designed for preservation, and then we must allow nothing to alter the wilderness character of the preserves."   - Howard Zahniser