Reading the tea leaves: a new era for public lands?

[profdant139]

What effects will the new administration have on RVers who camp in the national parks and national forests? (This post is emphatically not about politics – if you want to rant about the next president or the current one, please feel free to start another thread. I really hope that this thread doesn’t devolve into partisanship!)

I view the change in administration just as I would view a change in the weather – I may or may not like it, and there is nothing I can do about it, but it is useful to think about the forecast. My predictions are based largely on the folks who have already been picked for the cabinet.

I understand that the parks are under the Dept. of the Interior, and the forests are under the Dept. of Agriculture. But my predictions are based on the full slate of appointees, including, for example, the person who will head up the EPA. Those appointments provide some broad guidance: the next administration will tilt toward resource utilization and away from conservation, when compared with the current administration.

In the case of the national parks, I think that we will see an emphasis on repairing the infrastructure (roads and campgrounds) and on developing more tourist facilities. We could see an increase in user fees, as a response to declining tax revenue.

It is even possible that the park service will begin to explore thinning the forests after years of fire suppression, instead of adhering to the practice of prescribed burns. (I am not sure whether the current park rules against thinning are statutory or are the result of administrative regulations, which are easier to change than statutes.)

In the case of the national forests (and also the BLM), I think that we will see a greatly increased focus on resource extraction (drilling, logging, and mining). That will mean new roads. Many years from now, those roads will be available for boondocking and ATV usage. In the short term, though, I think that public use of those new roads will be restricted or banned, in order to avoid conflicts with logging trucks, tankers, and dump trucks. The operations will be noisy and unsightly during the next several years, but the effects will be localized.

I am not sure what is going to happen with the national monuments (such as, for example, the Giant Sequoia NM). I am not an expert on this issue, but it is my impression that many (if not all) monuments were created by executive order, rather than by statute. If that is true, then it could be possible for the next president to rescind some of those orders. That may open up those areas to logging.

It would also be my guess that the next administration will not be expanding the scope of existing wilderness areas nor declaring new ones.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Do you foresee any other changes to the public lands that will affect RV camping?

[BoonHauler]

dave54 wrote:
My guess is no major changes.

Any changes at all will be minor, slow, and incremental.

Professional land managers with decades of on the ground experience and dedication to the agency mission will still be the final decisionmakers. By the time radical policy changes get processed in the legislative sausage machine and then filtered down through the layers of bureaucracy the average public land user may not be able to notice any difference.

I am hopeful the push for infrastructure rebuilding also includes facilities on public land.

If any big change comes of this I hope is a greater voice of local government in public land decisionmaking. For too many years local concerns have been intentionally and deliberately ignored with top down mandates.

Great post Dave54 ..... I think you are right on, on all points mentioned.

[profdant139]

rjxj, I had never heard of Agenda 21 -- and when I looked into it, it sounded like one of those fake news conspiracy theories. But it's real -- it is a UN plan to reduce the impact of human population and to restore and extend wildlands. Interesting idea, but it is just not in the cards, so I am not going to worry about it. Plus, I am much too old for rewilding -- at my age, my idea of "wild" is watching TV till 10 pm without falling asleep on the couch. 😉

In response to Restless Diesel, there is a theory that modest increases in user fees for the parks and forests would help to screen out some folks who abuse the resources because they have no "skin in the game." (This is a particular problem in California in the forests near large urban areas.) But on the other hand, many folks feel strongly that they have paid enough in taxes and do not want any extra fees.

I am assuming that if and when the parks and forests get ready to implement fee increases, there will be a public comment period. So we will get to weigh in at that time. Does anyone know if there is a website where those sorts of proposals are published? I wonder if there is a way to sign up for notifications, so that we do not miss the comment window.

[azrving]

For a bigger view of what may happen look beyond our current politics and research Agenda 21 and the rewilding of America.

[Restless_Diesel]

Thank you Profdant139 for a thoughtful post! Because I like to take my Jeep onto our public lands and I drive a MH, I've felt that my choices have more frequently been frowned on by others that enjoy a different perspective. My best guess for what the immediate future holds is that there will be a lessening of the restrictions put on my (our) ability to enjoy our parks and public lands in the manner that I'm able to handle as I age. I'd expect and hope there to be a slow-down in the naming of wilderness areas that exclude all motorized access. As to user fees increasing, I think this is inevitable. I feel guilty using my Senior Pass to enter the national parks, unless I'm just driving through. I feel like I should pay my fair share to enjoy the parks' beauty and amenities. I'll probably get over that view as soon as I'm on a fixed income though!

[c_traveler2]

profdant139 wrote:
Well, ctraveler, I am disappointed to hear you say my post is political. To me, a political post advocates a certain policy outcome. That's ok when posters do that -- there are several political posts in this thread already, but they are civil, so I am hoping that the thread does not get closed.

By contrast, my original post is not designed to advocate for any specific outcome. I just asked what is likely to happen. Not what ought to happen.

And, just to refresh the thread, if anyone disagrees with my predictions or would like to amplify, please feel free to do so -- this is a seminar, not a lecture! 😉

Our idea of what is "political" is different so be it. We both travel and use smaller campers to travel in and getting out there in the back country. Some like to "bring" home with them and some are like us that explore with the smaller rigs, I've met people who believe using any camper or RV type of vehicle is a crime against "Mother Earth" and that only hiking in and the use of a tent is the only acceptable way of camping.
As far as changes in NPs that has long ago happen, just look at the Grand Canyon (south rim) I won't go near that place during the summer and Yellowstone NP is in the same situation. Both places have been promoted so much that they have become the "Disneyland's" of the National Park system and this occurred long before Trump was elected as President.

[avoidcrowds]

While you started the thread asking what we thought may happen, I would like to offer a "wish" for what may happen.

As was posted earlier, fees are collected, but they don't get used in the originating facility, for the most part. I would like to see at least 75% of all fees collected remain in the originating facility, unless the facility did not need all of the fees collected.

This way, the popular facilities would be able to maintain their facility, while sending a portion of the fees to less-used facilities to assist in their upkeep. Just because a facility (campground, for instance) is not well-used does not mean it is not valuable to the public.

[dave54]

My guess is no major changes.

Any changes at all will be minor, slow, and incremental.

Professional land managers with decades of on the ground experience and dedication to the agency mission will still be the final decisionmakers. By the time radical policy changes get processed in the legislative sausage machine and then filtered down through the layers of bureaucracy the average public land user may not be able to notice any difference.

I am hopeful the push for infrastructure rebuilding also includes facilities on public land.

If any big change comes of this I hope is a greater voice of local government in public land decisionmaking. For too many years local concerns have been intentionally and deliberately ignored with top down mandates.

[RossAnabel]

Well said Rex. The ideological pendulum just took a hard swing to the right, but history says it will swing back the other way again. Then a whole different group of "Chicken Littles " will be cackling.

[profdant139]

rex, I'm afraid I can no longer get myself into a lather -- many years have passed since I had any hair that needed shampooing! 😉

[rexlion]

Nothing wrong with sitting around speculating, and expectorating. Um, where's the spittoon? 😉

I will agree with c.traveler2 that things move slowly in gummint circles. It's to be expected, since we're talking about a mammoth-sized organization. Besides, even the purposeful design of our 3-branch system keeps things moving rather slowly and deliberately, so hasty mistakes are less likely and cool heads might prevail. I expect that the changes will be slow, small, and incremental. Nothing for anyone to get into a lather about... not saying that anyone here is doing so, of course. The general direction will, I think, be toward better access of public lands. I would not be surprised to see some increases in fees, plus a more businesslike approach to land and mineral rights leases, to help finance the care and upkeep of those lands and facilities.

[mrw8i]

I suspect there will be more mining/pasturing/ etc of BLM and some Forest Service lands. I doubt more roads will be opened up for OHV or other vehicles.

Political wise - I hope that National Monuments will be removed from the President and have to go though approval of Congress. This is based on Obama creating a National Monument of almost all desert land between I-40 and I-10 earlier this year, basically cutting it of from public use.

[dewey02]

RPreeb wrote:

You fail to contemplate that some of "We the People" who have more reasonably sized outfits like the option of having places where we can be apart from the behemoths that some RVers drive. Those of us who are still willing to camp without microwaves and television and who still use the stove (or even the fire) to heat water for hot beverages. We don't need to run a generator for more than a couple of hours every 3rd day to keep our single battery in shape, and even then only if there is no sun to feed the solar. Our TT is a place to be comfortable in bad weather and for sleeping. We spend most of our time outside of the camper.

This is why we avoid RV parks. Many of us prefer the more primitive national forest and national park campgrounds as they are (and many of those have some campsites large enough for a big MH), and only seek out full service RV parks when actually needed. Hookups are the last thing we seek when planning a trip, aside from finding a water refill and a dump station every few days. Because there are people with different needs and wants, there are campgrounds that offer differing amenities. I don't see why they should all be expected to cater to the 40' MH crowd.

We have to keep in mind that even James Watt failed to destroy the National Parks System during his reign, despite his best efforts.

X2.
I agree with this post completely.

[profdant139]

Well, ctraveler, I am disappointed to hear you say my post is political. To me, a political post advocates a certain policy outcome. That's ok when posters do that -- there are several political posts in this thread already, but they are civil, so I am hoping that the thread does not get closed.

By contrast, my original post is not designed to advocate for any specific outcome. I just asked what is likely to happen. Not what ought to happen.

And, just to refresh the thread, if anyone disagrees with my predictions or would like to amplify, please feel free to do so -- this is a seminar, not a lecture! 😉

[c_traveler2]

profdant139, your post is political, but its being in a civil manner maybe your post will stay. Most people refuse to accept that just about everything we do is because of political influence, some law, code or regulation that has its origins in the political mindset of "I just don't like what someone else is doing". The results is what I stated above, some law,code or regulation is passed upon the masses.

Being a retired state employee I can tell you thing move slow in the government no matter who's the captain of the ship.

Time to get off my soapbox.

[RossAnabel]

Maybe the government can auction off Yellowstone to make some big money. It's all about the money isn't it, after all? Maybe GE can join with Trump Properties (Grump Inc) and buy it. Cap all that wasted energy for steam turbine electric power. Then build a Disney style theme park. Luxury RV park, Hotels, spur off the interstate to handle the extra traffic, maybe even an airport (infrastructure improvements). We can have the Yellowstone Experience, tram ride with such features as dancing and singing animal anamatronics, guysers and mud pools that work on compressed air, all timed to the travels of the tourist-filled trams running by. Much more interesting (and profitable) than all that natural stuff, waiting for a whole hour for Old Faithful, animals that wander uncontrollably and then don't really do anything entertaining at that.
Just think of all the jobs that such types of development would create, to say nothing of the green enerergy potential. Win-win.
We need to consider what made America Great in the past and not be afraid of bold infrastructure projects for the future. The Grand Canyon is just begging to be dammed up and use its potential for the good of mankind. Like my ex said, after all, it's actually just a big hole in the ground. Where's the gift shop?