greenrvgreen wrote:
The lands in question will be better-managed by the State Parks than the BLM--and safer from encroachment by development. Obstinate freeloaders, however, will have to move down the road a bit.
The state parks are in the business of preserving parkland, and camping. The BLM and similar agencies do not have camping or preservation as their primary mandate. In an era of shrinking budgets, when a parcel becomes too difficult to manage cheaply, the cheapest solution is to close off access.
When RVers whose main goal is camping tell an agency that they don't want an area declared a campground, they're telling that agency that there's no dealing with them. Every agency has disparate groups clamoring for for special treatment--this is no time to send RVers to the back of the line.
You are correct that the land will be better managed by the State,- they will be charging for it, will put in very minor amenities and will reduce the number of campsites so less people will be using it, hence less wear and tear.
However it will not be better protected from development- just the opposite as has been proven in numerous embattled places in the west. (And explained by several posters on this forum who live in the West where this is a significant issue)
.The obstinate freeloaders your refer to I guess are what we in the west call camping. On an average summer weekend there are a million or so people camping on BLM or National Forest land in the western states.
You are correct on one other point- they will go down the road. - As I believe I mentioned in an earlier post they will go to the BLM directly across the river, or to BLM land 1/4 mile away across the road or others nearby. The key difference between Salida East and these other campsites is that Salida East has a toilet and the others do not. The result will be human waste and toilet paper washing into the river and polluting the environment.
This in not primarily an RV issue as RVs make up less than 20% of the users- most are tent campers.