Changes in Roadless Rule

[Jim]

This is more of the same - but if you're interested please send in a comment. Good summary here: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/408/index.html

 

Will a Bush Administration effort open hundreds of thousands of acres of public land to private development?

 

Signed by President Bill Clinton in 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects nearly 60 million acres of the country's national forest lands from most road building, mining and logging. This was the culmanation of a 2 year public comment period, with over 1.5 million public comments received, the vast majority favoring retention of the Roadless classification. Roadless means you can still use these areas for recreation, including snowmobiles and ATVs. Now the Bushies, in their lame duck year, are trying to change the rules and allow State Govenors to apply for changes in designation on FEDERAL LANDS to open these to timber, oil, and gas interests. Over the last seven years, the Bush administration has tried to amend or repeal the landmark regulation to give states more flexibility. Idaho appears to be the first on the chopping block.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

This is more of the same - but if you're interested please send in a comment. Good summary here: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/408/index.html

 

Will a Bush Administration effort open hundreds of thousands of acres of public land to private development?

 

Signed by President Bill Clinton in 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects nearly 60 million acres of the country's national forest lands from most road building, mining and logging. This was the culmanation of a 2 year public comment period, with over 1.5 million public comments received, the vast majority favoring retention of the Roadless classification. Roadless means you can still use these areas for recreation, including snowmobiles and ATVs. Now the Bushies, in their lame duck year, are trying to change the rules and allow State Govenors to apply for changes in designation on FEDERAL LANDS to open these to timber, oil, and gas interests. Over the last seven years, the Bush administration has tried to amend or repeal the landmark regulation to give states more flexibility. Idaho appears to be the first on the chopping block.

 

agreed. and let's fix the fucking roads we have. i'd like to get up Glacier, Dome, and a few other peaks. F'n'A.

 

 

[Jim]

Ya know, the one thing I never understood is why the politos, right or left, never pushed for more money to go to rural communities following the timber bust to give folks jobs in decommissioning old roads, fixing the rec roads that are used, doing trail work, fixing park facilities, etc. I mean those timber guys can work a variety of tools and machines like nobody's business, they're not afraid of hard work outside, would like to continue using their skills. And towns like Darrington and Forks could use some help, as could the parks and USFS lands.

[tvashtarkatena]

Rural counties already spend 7 times more than they generate in tax revenues; they are heavily subsidized by cities. Towns such as Forks should be allowed to adjust their population to what livelihood is locally available and sustainable, rather than become artificially overpopulated due to government programs which can and will end suddenly, creating a worse economic problem in the future.

[Jim]

To some extent I agree. But if you could build small sustainable work forces that would be helping the forests and parks I'd go for that rather than the current plan which is continually pushing for resoure extraction.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Well, I think we can certainly afford to double or triple budgets for our NF's and NP's to maintain and improve them. Hardly a drop in the bucket compared to our other budgetary line items.

[StevenSeagal]

Well, I think we can certainly afford to double or triple budgets for our NF's and NP's to maintain and improve them. Hardly a drop in the bucket compared to our other budgetary line items.

 

Oh, but why spend precious government budget on parks and recreation when we can just install "special use" fees for climbing, hiking, parking, looking, enjoying? What, are people going to stop going to the mountains if we do that? Of course not! Then "free market choices" will end up determining how the parks are maintained. Except that the money mostly will go to paying for regulations enforcement, so then we can have a good excuse to raise the fees even more. Problem solved.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, I love all the new signage (and those kiosks!) that the new fees have funded. Plus all the new fee enforcement jobs that the, well, fees have been generated. Less access than ever...but those SIGNS! Going to the backcountry is SO MUCH BETTER now.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Oh, but why spend precious government budget on parks and recreation when we can just install "special use" fees for climbing, hiking, parking, looking, enjoying? What, are people going to stop going to the mountains if we do that? Of course not! Then "free market choices" will end up determining how the parks are maintained. Except that the money mostly will go to paying for regulations enforcement, so then we can have a good excuse to raise the fees even more. Problem solved.

 

I think some usage fees are reasonable. Campgrounds with toilets to clean or paper to stock, firepits to be cleaned, trashcans to be emptied.

 

But that doesn't mean usage fees alone should be paying for maintenance and upkeep of our parks.

[StevenSeagal]

 

Oh, but why spend precious government budget on parks and recreation when we can just install "special use" fees for climbing, hiking, parking, looking, enjoying? What, are people going to stop going to the mountains if we do that? Of course not! Then "free market choices" will end up determining how the parks are maintained. Except that the money mostly will go to paying for regulations enforcement, so then we can have a good excuse to raise the fees even more. Problem solved.

 

I think some usage fees are reasonable. Campgrounds with toilets to clean or paper to stock, firepits to be cleaned, trashcans to be emptied.

 

But that doesn't mean usage fees alone should be paying for maintenance and upkeep of our parks.

 

I was amazed actually that Joshua Tree campgrounds were free for as long as they were, with all the above mentioned facilities in place and being regularly serviced.

 

Agreed, campground fees are reasonable; although with most National Parks charging as much as $25 for camping sites, I am pretty sure that not all that money is going to campground related expenses. As well- $20 or so is not really very cheap for an activity that is supposed to enable extended budget travel...considering cheap motels in many areas run from $30-45.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Agreed, campground fees are reasonable; although with most National Parks charging as much as $25 for camping sites, I am pretty sure that not all that money is going to campground related expenses.

 

$25? Where are you camping? I typically see rates from 10-15. I just reserved 2 spots in Kalaloch for $18 a night and that includes the online reservation fee through the org running the reservation service, and that was on the high end.

 

Now, try visiting Canada, and you'll really see high usage fees.

[StevenSeagal]

It's $20 (or more?) if you reserve in some National Parks, like Tuolumne, where you almost have to reserve if you want a spot in high season. I was wrong about $25, I was confusing that with the entrance fees.

Nonetheless- expect $15-18 at the major NPS sites- for an extended trip that adds up.

There's a couple of private campgrounds near Squamish- they are $24!!! Better to sleep out on the spit with all the drunk rednecks.

[Hugh Conway]

Now, try visiting Canada, and you'll really see high usage fees.

 

Before the bush peso Canadian campgrounds were about the same as US campgrounds.

 

several Yosemite campgrounds are $20 a night, several Jellystone campgrounds are $17

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Now, try visiting Canada, and you'll really see high usage fees.

 

Before the bush peso Canadian campgrounds were about the same as US campgrounds.

 

several Yosemite campgrounds are $20 a night, several Jellystone campgrounds are $17

 

yeah, but if you stay in the park a week, you pay 7x the entrance fee. in the US, the entrance fee for one day is good for a week.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

and they charge extra to light a fire.

[tvashtarkatena]

Also, Canada does not have the equivalent of NWFP or Snopark fees, so, overall, their fee structure is much lower than the U.S.

 

I'm not sure what the hell Canada has to do with this discussion anyway, except as a pointless diversion. We're talking about U.S. policy; something we have at least some control over.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's $20 (or more?) if you reserve in some National Parks, like Tuolumne, where you almost have to reserve if you want a spot in high season.

 

Ahh, Cali. Well, they charge more there because it's higher usage and they can get away with it. People will pay it.

 

[StevenSeagal]

It's $20 (or more?) if you reserve in some National Parks, like Tuolumne, where you almost have to reserve if you want a spot in high season.

 

Ahh, Cali. Well, they charge more there because it's higher usage and they can get away with it. People will pay it.

 

Or not...you can drive out a short bit over Tioga and camp at the cheaper, nicer, and less crowded eastside USFS campgrounds, or better, just hike out in the woods and dirtbag it.

 

Unfortunately, most people going camping in California are such gapers at just being in the mountains and out of the comforts of home, they'd probably pay $100 just for the experience of sleeping on the ground for the first time in their lives and getting "back to nature"...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Or not...you can drive out a short bit over Tioga and camp at the cheaper, nicer, and less crowded eastside USFS campgrounds, or better, just hike out in the woods and dirtbag it.

 

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the day a ranger pulls into a TH turnout and demands a fee or tells me I can't sleep there (e.g. WA Pass, Eldorado TH, whatever)

[tvashtarkatena]

He's a Fed. You'll pay the fee alright, and you'll be nice and polite about it.

 

I arrived back at the TH after 4 days of not paying midweek just as the Ranger arrived. Caught red handed. He was a really nice guy, and said if I mailed in the check within a week plus the 5$ difference, he'd send me an annual pass; no ticket.

 

Don't blame the hired hands. They're just doing their job.

[Fairweather]

I'm willing to deal. If groups like The Wilderness Society, ALPS, MTSGW, NCCC, and WTA stop lobbying for the permanent closure of traditional recreation access roads, I'll start writing letters supporting Roadless Rule implementation.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm willing to deal. If groups like The Wilderness Society, ALPS, MTSGW, NCCC, and WTA stop lobbying for the permanent closure of traditional recreation access roads, I'll start writing letters supporting Roadless Rule implementation.

 

No shit. Like I said - let's maintain the ones we have -with adequate funding, and not through increased usage fees.

[tvashtarkatena]

You want to raise taxes for everyone so a few of you lazy posers don't have to walk/ride your mountain bikes so far?

Edited February 28, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Hugh Conway]

You want to raise taxes for everyone so a few of you lazy posers don't have to walk/ride your mountain bikes so far?

 

No, no, ttk.

 

They want the government to give them something they don't want to pay for it

[tvashtarkatena]

Closet libtards.