Saint Helen's permit

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You can go research the budgets, I don't have the time, but here's what I know as fact. USFS Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie has consolidated their offices. The moved from Montlake to Everrett, have continued to cut biology staff, recreation folks, rangers, etc. And have been pushed, no forced, to contract work that that could be done more efficiently and cheaply in-house. Yes the fee system did start before the Bushies as noted by Matt, but the stripping of the natural resource agencies' budgets under the Bushies has no comparison.

 

It's just a bit ironic that when folks are complaining about bloated government agencies and then those agencies are pushed into increased user fees, the whinning begins.

 

Are you saying the USFS is a "bloated" agency or was before the the "consolidation" you cite above? I never said it was bloated.

[mattp]

KK, how many times have you posted about how regulation is bad, government sucks, and "our ilk" would have the nanny state wiping our butts? Maybe you feel differently about the Forest Service or management of public lands in general, but how's a guy to know?

 

Note: I agree with you in this particular argument, but the indignation about how somebody could assume you take a certain position is misplaced.

[Jim]

If the USFS doesn't fit into your usual distain of needing to "starve the beast" of government then my misgivings are misplaced. I'll keep it general then; folks shouldn't be surprised that land management agencies charge fees for access when their budgets are pared down to nothing; nor should they complain about the use of third party contractors when that directive is coming from the president's office. Cheers.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK, how many times have you posted about how regulation is bad, government sucks, and "our ilk" would have the nanny state wiping our butts? Maybe you feel differently about the Forest Service or management of public lands in general, but how's a guy to know?

 

Note: I agree with you in this particular argument, but the indignation about how somebody could assume you take a certain position is misplaced.

 

Again you put words into my mouth. Pretty typical from you.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If the USFS doesn't fit into your usual distain of needing to "starve the beast" of government then my misgivings are misplaced. I'll keep it general then; folks shouldn't be surprised that land management agencies charge fees for access when their budgets are pared down to nothing; nor should they complain about the use of third party contractors when that directive is coming from the president's office. Cheers.

 

When Obama's presidency ends the fee structure will still be there. I'll bet you a pitcher of beer on that.

[Jim]

I agree with you there. It will take decades to undo the Iditot's deeds.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree with you there. It will take decades to undo the Iditot's deeds.

 

It'll take decades to change a budgetary line item? Bullshit.

[Peter_Puget]

Jim -

 

Let's see some detials on FS funding. (over 30 years or so)

[mattp]

It'll take decades to change a budgetary line item? Bullshit.

 

I think if you asked folks in the Forest Service they would say that it will indeed take years and probably decades to repair the damage done from years of neglect and that the undermining and maybe even active dismantling of their agency over the last six or eight years is very real.

 

Take a look at the press releases coming from Wa Department of Ecology about crumbling forest roads and fisheries habitat. Consider how long it took to complete environmental review and complete planning and politics necessary to re-open the Mountain Loop Highway. Read a little about the backlog in roadway and trail projects. Learn about the shrinking national forest management teams of recent years.

 

It is not just as simple as a "line item."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It'll take decades to change a budgetary line item? Bullshit.

 

I think if you asked folks in the Forest Service they would say that it will indeed take years and probably decades to repair the damage done from years of neglect.

 

Take a look at the press releases coming from Wa Department of Ecology about crumbling forest roads and fisheries habitat. Consider how long it took to complete environmental review and complete planning and politics necessary to re-open the Mountain Loop Highway. Read a little about the backlog in roadway and trail projects.

 

It is not just as simple as a "line item."

 

I doubt this is on Obamalama's radar screen. My first point is you'll see little change from his admin, but you'll still blame W. My second point is you can improve a hell of a lot within just 4 years and don't need "decades". Sorry, but excuses don't cut it. As for Mtn. Loop yeah it took years to do - in the current environment and budget. The "politics" of that problem of course are more due to left-wing-nut greens than to W's budget cuts.

 

[mattp]

I bet you are right that we will see little dramatic change with a Democrat in the white house, KK, and you are also right that to a substantial extent we will still blame not so much W as the Republican consolidation in both White House and Congress for some of the current Forest Service woes.

 

Still, I suspect that the agency and our particular interest in having forest roads maintained in general will likely do better if we are so lucky as to have a Democratic President rather than a Republican one - and a few extra Democrats in Congress won't hurt, either.

 

As to the Mountain Loop Highway? I don't know all of the issues but if you actually go up there and look (maybe you have) you will see that the road is built in and on the riverbed at a couple of places. It doesn't surprise me that there would be a need for environmental review and I don't think it necessarily a bad thing that environmental groups and the Department of Ecology may have opposed the project or tried to impose extra requirements to protect fish habitat.

[Fairweather]

If the USFS doesn't fit into your usual distain of needing to "starve the beast" of government then my misgivings are misplaced. I'll keep it general then; folks shouldn't be surprised that land management agencies charge fees for access when their budgets are pared down to nothing; nor should they complain about the use of third party contractors when that directive is coming from the president's office. Cheers.

 

Except I have yet to see where the fees being charged support more than enforcement of said fee.