|
On October 28, 2006 I wrote: "I have written many times, and with increasing frequency, about how federal land management agencies are closing and shuttering public recreation facilities."
On June 24, 2007 I followed with a piece titled "The shuttering has begun in earnest".
Today, I share with you a column from a newspaper in Upper Michigan. The headline reads, "What’s the benefit of shuttering campgrounds?"
What indeed is the benefit of shuttering campgrounds? Why is this happening on public lands all across America. Why specifically is the shuttering being focused the smaller, rustic, minimally developed, free or inexpensive to stay at, out of the way campgrounds that have long been the most popular amongst those closest to the Great Outdoors?
Why, as this column asks is "There is a push to bigger and better — such as large motor homes for camping and deep-sea charter boats for fishing — that not all residents of and visitors to our state embrace"?
Those reading the Wild Wilderness blog know the answers to these questions. You know who is to blame, because you've been paying attention. Have you interest in helping to stop this trend, or will you be satisfied knowing what's happening, why it's happening and what the eventual outcome will be?
Scott

--- begin quoted ---
July 15, 2007
What’s the benefit of shuttering campgrounds?
Dave Schneider Journal Outdoor Editor
It was sad to learn recently that the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources closed 20 state forest campgrounds, including nine in the
Upper Peninsula.
These small, out-of-the-way campgrounds are as traditional in the northwoods as are small, out-of-the-way brookie streams.
Both offer a rustic, ageless experience that is unfortunately fading from our society.
There is a push to bigger and better — such as large motor homes for
camping and deep-sea charter boats for fishing — that not all residents
of and visitors to our state embrace.
Many use our public natural resources as a way to leave the hectic,
electrified world behind for a brief period. We need to have this
respite.
Closing the state forest campgrounds was deemed necessary by those in
Lansing as a means to cut about $75,000 that was reduced in the
department’s current year budget.
The savings is coming in the form of eliminating 100 hours of summer
employees’ hours and gas it would take to have those workers travel to
the campgrounds to collect trash and camping fees, according to Jim
Radabaugh, recreation and trails manager with the DNR in Lansing.
The department looked at all the state’s 138 state forest campgrounds
to decide which ones to close, based on usage and cost-to-income
factors.
While it’s difficult to determine the savings in gasoline to fuel
workers’ vehicles, the savings by cutting 100 hours of minimum wage
jobs (which I assume they would be) amounts to $715.Throw in a few
hundred more for trash bags and it still seems a little short to me.
There are probably some other cost factors that weren’t revealed, but
it seems to me quite a few state forest users are being hurt by the
campground closures. Not only campers, either, but at least one U.P.
kayak outfitter has seen his business impacted by the closures.
Luckily, the outfitter said he can still use the boat launches at the campgrounds or he would have been out of luck.
On the positive side, the situation is being viewed as a temporary one
by DNR officials, who said they are hoping funding will be restored by
the Legislature so the campgrounds can be reopened.
I’m sure the move has nothing to do with the effort by the DNR to have
the Legislature increase hunting and fishing license fees in light of
looming budget deficits.
Regardless, I’m not sure either move, closing of rustic campgrounds and
hiking license fees, will have the desired results of helping to
balance the department’s budget — without alienating a lot of campers,
anglers and hunters.
In light of significant reductions in the number of hunters and
anglers, as well as serious state budget woes, the DNR may have to
start looking at becoming a much smaller operation.
|