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?

[RPreeb]

rexlion wrote:

tegu69 wrote:
... I really think that now, most people are slobs and don't care. It makes it bad for everybody.

I began teaching 7th Grade Math last August, and if this batch of students is any gauge, you haven't seen anything yet! The trash on the floor at day's end is appalling. They snap their pencils into pieces and throw them at others. Paper everywhere. Disrespectful. When they reach adult age, I hate to think what condition they will leave our public lands in.

I think that 7th graders have been slobs just about forever. Most grow out of it... even me. :W

[rexlion]

tegu69 wrote:
... I really think that now, most people are slobs and don't care. It makes it bad for everybody.

I began teaching 7th Grade Math last August, and if this batch of students is any gauge, you haven't seen anything yet! The trash on the floor at day's end is appalling. They snap their pencils into pieces and throw them at others. Paper everywhere. Disrespectful. When they reach adult age, I hate to think what condition they will leave our public lands in.

[nevadanick]

I agree they shouldnt be allowed everywhere, but dont agree with the damage assement. Somewhere i have a brochure from USFS that show a damaged hillside with a spiderweb of trails and it was caused from hikers ina wilderness area. Like i said, bad apples in every group. I personally think there is room for all of us.

[COboondocker]

nevadanick wrote:
Not everyone that rides a dirtbike is irresponsibe. My bike is as quiet as they come and i stay on trails. There are bad apples in every walk of life including campers, hikers etc.

Of course not everyone that rides a dirtbike is irresponsible, in fact most ARE responsible. The fact is though, motorized vehicles do more damage than people on foot. They're heavier and cover 100x the territory. I'm not saying they should be disallowed but there are already many places they are allowed and they don't need to be allowed everywhere.

[nevadanick]

Not everyone that rides a dirtbike is irresponsibe. My bike is as quiet as they come and i stay on trails. There are bad apples in every walk of life including campers, hikers etc.

[Bumpyroad]

COboondocker wrote:
? Get too many speeding tickets or DUI's and you lose your right to operate a vehicle on public roads.

I have always heard that a drivers license is not a "right", it is a privilege.
bumpy

[COboondocker]

Naio wrote:
I read somewhere that even the nicest people can be tempted by authoritarian, repressive solutions when things or people they love are threatened. In these troubled times I think we all meed to exercise that constant vigilance.

IOW, I am tempted to agree -- and I need to watch out for this in myself as well as in my surroundings.

Authoritarianism is what people are pulled into when they feel weak and powerless. But it does not work. We need to stand up and do what does work, instead.

I agree authoritarianism would be awful but I don't think banning people from parks would necessarily be deemed such, do you? Get too many speeding tickets or DUI's and you lose your right to operate a vehicle on public roads. I'm not saying people should be jailed for littering but I don't think it's unfair to say - if you can't follow the rules you don't get to use it.

Something needs to be done because the amount of trash I'm finding upon arriving at many dispersed sites is very disconcerting. There are plenty along the front range I won't visit with my young son because there are too many vagrants, alcohol bottles, needles and even mattresses strewn about.

Edit to add: I guess I just don't want more places to turn out like what tegu69 just posted above. Sites are getting trashed more often so rather than waiting til it gets even worse and banning everyone, why not deal with the issue at hand before it gets out of control?

Edit 2: excellent post dewey and thank you very much for sharing!

[tegu69]

I used to camp with friends, on an island off Key West,starting in the early 1970's. Sometimes, there would be a half dozen boats in our group. For years, we would typically get to the island, unload tents, stoves, extra gas for the boats ect. and then head out fishing. Nobody ever bothered with our stuff while we were gone. We always took garbage bags with us and didn't leave anything behind. One time we got there and there was a lot of trash strewn about. When we left the place we picked up some of what others had left behind.
The next time we arrived, the place looked like a dump. Soon after that, there were signs put up stating no admittance,restricted area. I really think that now, most people are slobs and don't care. It makes it bad for everybody.

[Roy_Lynne]

Thank you for cleaning up our precious land, PawPaw and Gran.

[PawPaw_n_Gram]

My impressions.

We made our first visit to the western states starting in mid-October.

Previously we've stayed at a lot of COE parks in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Vermont, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Mississippi. I've camped at National Forest parks in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama.

On this trip we've stayed at popular national parks, national forest campgrounds, BLM campgrounds, and some dispersed USFS and/or BLM camping in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada. Heading to California next week.

The rational part of me can see the draw of dispersed camping. The practical side of me is disappointed at the lack of visual difference between a popular dispersed BLM area and the town trash dump when I was growing up.

We've picked up a moderate trash bag (13-gal) of trash every day on our walks. But when we go to a dispersed BLM area - we would need two or three 30 gallon trash bags each day.

I've seen a fellow with a $100,000 fifth wheel and four ATVs dump his black water on the ground, then move the rig a quarter mile and not even pretend it wasn't his normal operation method.

Personally, the BLM folks I've met are doing a great job, and I do think the BLM is attempting very well to balance the need to preserve the land for future generations yet keep the land open where possible for use by today's users.

Back when my father first took us camping to Albert Pike in the Ouachita National Forest over 50 years ago - there were no fees because there was no maintenance or effort to keep up campgrounds. People did that as a part of their personal pride and responsibility.

A couple years ago when we were campground hosts at a national park - I was disappointed at the number of people who feel that the $14 per day fee was sufficient to hire people to cleanup the campground after their visit.

I expect the cost of camping on national lands to go up over the next decade. No matter who is president or which party runs the DOI/DA. Some 40 years ago, a national policy was defined that said contracting out all possible federal functions to civilian For Profit companies was best for the United States. 30-35 years ago, the administration in power started to fully implement that policy.

We are seeing it today. It will continue.

Folks unhappy about federal lands being 'restricted by Washington bureaucrats' are going to be shocked when some BLM land is turned over to the states, and given to commercial contractors to run. Access will get worse not better if states take control of the federal lands in my opinion.

Enjoy Quartzsite now because in 5 years there will be no 'free' camping along the Colorado River valley in California or Arizona.

[profdant139]

Dewey, that was awesome! Is the final exam essay or multiple choice? 😉 Just kidding.

Seriously, that was really interesting. Not kidding about that!

[dewey02]

adambeck7 wrote:

dave54 wrote:
The National Forests were created to facilitate rural economic development while protecting forested watersheds.
They were not created to protect from logging, but to increase logging to benefit local communities, under the oversight of professional foresters who would harvest timber while protecting and maintaining the values. Multiple use is mandated by law. Wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation are supposed to be given equal weight.

It's my understanding that logging and rural development was eventually one intended uses of the NF but it was definitely not the sole reason why it was created. It was created to protect watersheds and forests. The logging was done to help prevent huge forest fires as well as provide economy and help nearby rural communities.

An interesting discussion about the origin and purposes of the National Forests. Each of the respondents has part of the true story, but the purpose of the "Forest Reserves," and National Forests has changed and evolved over time, and changed significantly over a very short time during the late 1800's and early 1900's.

1876 The Office of Special Agent for forest research is created in the Department of Agriculture to assess the state of the forests in the United States.
1881 The Office of the Special Agent is expanded into the newly formed Division of Forestry.

1891 The Forest Reserve Act authorizes withdrawing land from the public domain as “forest reserves,” managed by the Department of the Interior. This was done primarily to protect these lands from rampant logging and subsequent fires. Presidents Harrison, Cleveland and McKinley designate approx. 45 million acres as Forest Reserves.


1897 Organic Administration Act Unlike the national parks, which were created primarily to preserve natural beauty and unique outdoor recreation opportunities, the founders of early national forests envisioned them as working forests with multiple objectives. The Organic Administration Act of 1897, under which most national forests were established, states: "No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States…" USFS Reference link here
So securing water flows and supplying timber was definitely a key purpose once the Forest Reserves became the National Forests.



1905 The Transfer Act transfers the management of forest reserves from the General Land Office (within the Department of the Interior) to the Bureau of Forestry (within the Department of Agriculture). The name of the agency changes to the Forest Service.
President Theodore Roosevelt established 150 million acres of National Forest lands under his stead.



1911 The Weeks Act Several national forests were created under the Weeks Law of 1911 to restore forests on formerly private lands that had been heavily logged or cleared for agriculture. That law authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to "…examine, locate, and purchase such forested, cutover, or denuded lands within the watersheds of navigable streams as in his judgment may be necessary to the regulation of the flow of navigable streams or for the production of timber." Many of today’s Eastern national forests were acquired under the Weeks Law. USFS Reference link here



1960 Multiple Use/Sustained Yield Act This Act declares that the purposes of the national forest include outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed and fish and wildlife. The Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to administer national forest renewable surface resources for multiple use and sustained yield.

1976 National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests.

Today, the Forest Service manages for a multitude of renewable uses - wood supply, water, wildlife, wilderness, recreation, range, as well as the non-renewable mineral uses. These uses are directed by law.

For a history of the Forest Service, how it was established and how it has evolved, view The Greatest Good film. It is available on Youtube in several parts. Link here

[profdant139]

There is one thing we can all do (and I would bet that most of us already do this) -- clean up the trash that people have left at our boondocking sites. (We bring Hefty bags just for this purpose.) This is more than just "do-gooder-ism" -- and more than just setting an example. If a site is clean, future campers are more likely to feel inhibited about littering. If it is already trashy, they are more likely to adopt an "anything goes" mentality. So cleaning up the trash not only sends a message, it can also influence behavior. (Obviously, there are people who will litter, no matter what. This is about the folks who are not truly "bad guys.")

This is a variant on the "broken windows" school of policing -- if a neighborhood looks terrible, street criminals feel more at home.

[Naio]

adambeck7 wrote:

profdant139 wrote:
Adambeck, I am torn! The slogan for the national forests is "Land of Many Uses." That means I get to tow my trailer over forest roads and boondock in non-campground areas. So I ought to be in favor of unfettered mechanized use, right?

But when I am hiking, and an ATV roars past me on a non-ATV trail, I get annoyed. And when people boondock on previously-unused patches of forest, I get annoyed -- the public lands are being over-used and degraded. And I am (ouch!) part of the problem, no matter how carefully we park the trailer.

The goal of the forest service, especially, is to balance these conflicting uses, an impossible task. Assuming that the new administration tilts in favor of increased use and away from preservation, we who use the forests will have to participate somehow in the decision-making process concerning the new rules.

I don't want boondocking to be eliminated (and there is no risk of that, I think.) . But I would like to see enforcement of the rules that (for example) limit vehicle use to specifically-identified roads. There are parts of the Sierras that have been worn threadbare by folks cutting across the landscape, creating new "roads" where none used to exist. (This is a real problem, for example, in the Big Meadows area of the Sequoia National Forest and in parts of the El Dorado and Stanislaus forests.) If, however, the enforcement budgets are cut, then the rules become advisory, at best.

I would argue the amount of disruption caused by driving down an established FS road and camping near that in an established spot vs ripping around on a dirt bike/atv (usually with little to no muffler) through the wilderness are VERY different. So no I'm not for "unfettered" mechanized access.

I agree that it'd help greatly if current regs are more tightly enforced. I would like to see bigger fines for littering and vandalism in national forests. Maybe a $2000 fine and a one year ban from NFS and NPS. Happens again and you're banned for life. Maybe this would help keep the enforcement budget. There is absolutely no excuse to go to the one place reserved for keeping natural and pristine then trash it.

I read somewhere that even the nicest people can be tempted by authoritarian, repressive solutions when things or people they love are threatened. In these troubled times I think we all meed to exercise that constant vigilance.

IOW, I am tempted to agree -- and I need to watch out for this in myself as well as in my surroundings.

Authoritarianism is what people are pulled into when they feel weak and powerless. But it does not work. We need to stand up and do what does work, instead.