|
For five or more years, the US Forest Service has been quietly engaged in a process of determining which of its thousands of recreation sites could be closed, decommissioned, outsourced, or (in some cases) enhanced so as to transform currently free-access sites into pay-to-play sites.
Eighteen months ago, Wild Wilderness picked up the scent and at that time described what we saw as "Closing Down, Selling Off, Forest Recreation."
We followed that original warning with 19 additional postings.
At first, the agency's effort met with little resistance. It wasn't until the Forest Service began actually shutting, decommissioning, bulldozing and otherwise destroying opportunities for outdoor recreation did the public take notice.
Today the public has not merely taken notice, it is justifiably angered. This issue has reached the phase where the public is saying NO to the closing of low income recreation sites and the Forest Service's efforts to promote and maintain only those sites which can be operated profitably.
Appended are two excellent Editorials published today. Please read what is being said and consider writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and warning your community of the runaway bulldozer that needs to be brought under control.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
December 03, 2006
Colorado should lead nation's fight to save campsites
This story didn't make the radio talk shows or the Sunday morning TV
programs, but it should have. For a lot of American families it is more
important than many of the topics that got the attention.
The U.S. Forest Service is conducting a comprehensive inventory of
campgrounds and picnic areas in the national forests and grasslands.
That would be good news if the aim of the survey was to catalogue the
sorry state of many facilities and launch a program to improve them.
Many have been neglected for years.
But that's not the goal. The purpose is to identify opportunities to further diminish these accommodations.
Of course Forest Service administrators won't say that directly. What
they will say is that they are looking for "economies" - ways to cut
the budget.
Already the annual budget for next year was cut by 2.5 percent, and
that's only the beginning. The survey is intended to provide evidence
that it should be cut substantially more between now and 2010.
It's not the Forest Service's fault; the agency's budget is set by Congress.
Colorado's congressional delegation ought to lead a crusade in
Congress, forming a coalition of states with large Forest Service
holdings, to put more money into the Forest Service budget, not less.
We'll see where the Democrats stand on this now that they control both
houses.
Colorado's forests are a huge tourist attraction and economic force.
They are a wonderful model of the "multi-use" program of the Forest
Service, offering such wide-ranging activities as skiing, hunting and
fishing, camping, hiking, scientific research and logging.
You might notice that most of those activities are big revenue generators - especially skiing and hunting.
But camping doesn't pay its own way through daily user fees and other minimal services. And so it is the orphan in the network.
The Forest Service says there already is a $346 million backlog of
maintenance needs, and fire-fighting expenses are skyrocketing. Who in
Congress cares much about the condition of toilets at a forest
campground in Maine or Michigan or Colorado?
Families that use campgrounds don't ask much - just a sanitary site with basic, decent accommodations.
For many families this is the alternative to a Holiday Inn-style hotel
with playgrounds, swimming pools and exercise facilities. It is their
choice for where to spend precious family time together, rather than at
theme parks and monster-truck shows.
It also is the most economical vacation a family can afford these days.
The plan to cut services - possibly closing 10 percent of the nation's
15,000 campsites and trailheads with sanitary facilities - isn't
without opposition, but so far the survey is charging forth.
"This is an enormous change for the Forest Service," according to the
president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. Robert Funkhouser told
The Denver Post, "What you have here is a policy that mandates all
sites are self-sustaining or profitable or they must be closed."
Like a fresh breeze blowing through the wilderness, he insists, "That's not OK."
In some areas, the survey already has been completed. More than
one-third of the sites in three Colorado forests - Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison - have been tagged for closure or modification.
Colorado's junior senator, Ken Salazar, ought to call the state's
congressional delegation together to settle on a coordinated response
to this movement. They should launch a Congress-wide campaign to help
the Forest Service meet its agenda of serving the public, not just
collecting revenues from it.
If the Democratic Party really believes in the outdoor experience, it
should challenge "family values" Republicans to join in enhancing - not
diminishing - the assets of our National Forests.
Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of
The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
12/02/2006
Editorial: Forest plans need close look
Your favorite campground could be on a U.S. Forest Service hit list.
The agency, which manages about 15,000 camping areas and other
recreational sites on 193 million acres of public lands, is surveying
each site to weigh its value against the cost of upkeep.
We urge Congress to review the process and properly finance the maintenance of these sites.
Forty-four national forests have been examined, and 10 percent of their
facilities are marked for decommissioning or closure, Jeremy P. Meyer
reported in last Sunday's Denver Post. Another 175 forests and national
grasslands are to complete their reviews by the end of 2007.
The Forest Service says it launched the survey because of a generally
tight budget, increasing fire-fighting costs and a $346 million backlog
in maintenance work. Officials say that most campgrounds were built in
the 1960s, and many are outdated or deteriorating.
But the review has raised suspicions among agency critics. The Western
Slope No-Fee Coalition, a Colorado group that has opposed service
efforts to charge for some facilities and services, believes the agency
wants to impose a "for-profit" model on the forests and turn operation
of many sites over to contractors.
The group says the Forest Service has ineffectively used the
recreation-management funds that it already has. Beyond that, the
agency has run the project without adequate public input, even though
spokeswoman Lee Ann Loupe told Meyer that the public will be able to
comment and that "nothing is set in stone yet."
We don't object to the inventory, and we're quite certain that there
are facilities that can be closed or downgraded because of their light
use and ongoing costs. And it may be reasonable to institute some
moderate fees for the use of some recreational facilities.
But the Forest Service needs to remember these are public lands. The
agency should make sure all survey documents available and schedule
hearings on the plans for each forest.
Congress should review the project and the agency's motives. That would
be a good 2007 project for John Salazar, Mark Udall and Doug Lamborn,
three representatives whose districts include most of the national
forest land in our state.
|
- Land management 
