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?

[COboondocker]

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.

[COboondocker]

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.

[COboondocker]

dave54 wrote:

adambeck7 wrote:
Comments like that of azdryheat seem so strange to me. National Forests and Parks were created to preserve their natural beauty, not to create a playground for dirt bikes, speed boats and RVs. I'm hoping to god that these public treasures never become privatized and developed.

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.
National Wildlife Refuges were created for hunting.
National Parks exist to preserve the natural features while simultaneously providing for public access and enjoyment. That is in the National Parks Organic Act.

Read Teddy Roosevelt's autobiography for his own words on why he created National Forests and other public lands. He never intended public lands to be locked up like a museum, look but don't touch.

Public access and enjoyment, yes, but it also says: "by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

I'm all for allowing people to enjoy the land, they're far from "locked up", especially the national forests. Leaving them in tact for future generations doesn't involve creating developed campgrounds nor using motorized vehicles wherever you may please as azdryheat said. I also don't think Roosevelt could've imagined millions of people visiting these forests and driving ATV's all over.

Speaking of what Roosevelt intended "In the Grand Canyon, Arizona has a natural wonder which is in kind absolutely unparalleled throughout the rest of the world. I want to ask you to keep this great wonder of nature as it now is. I hope you will not have a building of any kind, not a summer cottage, a hotel or anything else, to mar the wonderful grandeur, the sublimity, the great loneliness and beauty of the canyon. Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it."

"It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals -- not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our people were awakening."

I'd say he most definitely cared about conservation of these lands as they are.

[Bumpyroad]

avoidcrowds wrote:
Bumpy, if an oil well drilling pad (the surface location of the drilling rig) is on someone's land, that landowner is compensated (amount varies with where it is located). The neighbors are generally not compensated. ("Fairness" of that can be discussed elsewhere.)

If the drilling targets minerals (oil, in this discussion) under the public land (through directional/horizontal drilling), and the public entity owns the minerals, then the public entity does get a royalty, if minerals (oil) are produced.

This is a bit out of the realm of the current discussion, so I will leave it with the above clarification.

I didn't mention or mean directional/horizontal drilling. my point is that if the well is on private property the govt gets no royalty. if the drilling is one on federal land, WE get a royalty.
bumpy

[profdant139]

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.

[dave54]

adambeck7 wrote:
Comments like that of azdryheat seem so strange to me. National Forests and Parks were created to preserve their natural beauty, not to create a playground for dirt bikes, speed boats and RVs. I'm hoping to god that these public treasures never become privatized and developed.

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.
National Wildlife Refuges were created for hunting.
National Parks exist to preserve the natural features while simultaneously providing for public access and enjoyment. That is in the National Parks Organic Act.

Read Teddy Roosevelt's autobiography for his own words on why he created National Forests and other public lands. He never intended public lands to be locked up like a museum, look but don't touch.

[COboondocker]

Comments like that of azdryheat seem so strange to me. National Forests and Parks were created to preserve their natural beauty, not to create a playground for dirt bikes, speed boats and RVs. I'm hoping to god that these public treasures never become privatized and developed.

[avoidcrowds]

Bumpy, if an oil well drilling pad (the surface location of the drilling rig) is on someone's land, that landowner is compensated (amount varies with where it is located). The neighbors are generally not compensated. ("Fairness" of that can be discussed elsewhere.)

If the drilling targets minerals (oil, in this discussion) under the public land (through directional/horizontal drilling), and the public entity owns the minerals, then the public entity does get a royalty, if minerals (oil) are produced.

This is a bit out of the realm of the current discussion, so I will leave it with the above clarification.

[Bumpyroad]

it seems to me that if an oil well is located 100 ft outside a national land area the country gets zero, if located 100 ft inside, a royalty of some sort?
bumpy

[Roy_Lynne]

azdryheat wrote:
Frankly, I'm sick of the government taking control of our lands and then kicking us out or making us pay huge fees to use it. All of our larger lakes in AZ, for example, are controlled by the feds or by the indians, which means there are no capitol improvements done. It's been quite some time ago but a Ranger at Roosevelt Lake (under federal control), NE of Phoenix, told us that we were lucky that we were allowed to put our boats on the lake. This is the government mentality at work.

I see the feds taking land away from We-the-People at the Yuma dunes areas and forcing them into more cramped confines that lead to accidents and injuries.

Earlier this year we visited Bryce and Zion National Parks and was charged $25 at each park to drive our Harley past the gate. Ranger said the fee was for a week. Big deal, we weren't going to be there for a week-long visit. We only wanted to visit for the day. A lower fee needs to be charged for day use. Better yet, no fee at all since it is our land, not the government's.

And on the topic of National Parks why are no improvements ever done? What do our camping fees go to? The RV parks have not been improved so that We-the-People who have larger RV's can use our land. I'm not going to buy a 25 footer so that I can camp in a national park. Time for the federal government to bring our RV parks into the current century.

I think the situation is out of control and hope that someone with some common sense can make some positive changes so that we can get our lands back.

BTW, the mice did speak in November. The mice DO have power.

I would agree, but if you think turning the land over to private developers will solve the problem, I've got a bridge to sell you. It will then be completely for profit.

[tegu69]

I can see more hotels built at Mt Rushmore, along with a new sculpture.

[Naio]

dahkota wrote:

I think public demand and expectation is out of control. Many seem to want what they want when and how they want it. They want to be catered to but 'no way' do they want to pay for it. I find it amusing that someone could, in the same breath, complain both about fees and lack of amenities that suit them.

Yep.

[2gypsies1]

The 'proposed' change for the Senior Pass is $80 for a LIFETIME. There hasn't been an increase since the 70's. It's way past due and this is truly a bargain.

How much do you pay for a special evening out with dinner and a concert? How about a professional sports game; amusement park; even a movie for two and dinner?

I really don't understand comments saying that the parks aren't for 40' rigs. They're for everyone. We have fit in many national parks just fine with the 40' motorhome such as Glacier, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Zion, Bryce, Grand Canyon, Big Bend, etc. We can easily do without hookups. We don't watch television. We're outdoors hiking and siteseeing. To categorize all those with big rigs as needing hookups isn't correct. When not in a national park or other public park you would find us boondocking. There are many like us out there.

For anyone complaining about the condition of our parks you need to try volunteering in the parks to see behind the scenes. As rangers say, "our parks are being loved to death". There are many people that trash the parks in many awful ways. These parks take an enormous amount of money just to keep up day to day. The infrastructure is very old.

[monkey44]

One thing I've seen batted around for fee increases is the loss of the seniors discount. I have no issue paying full price if that happens - but would feel like the price-rise would be humped on just the seniors who probably pay more camping fees annually than the general public in the bigger picture.

Seniors have more time, and camp more often ... so even at half-price in the less popular seasons, and during the week when CG's have many open sites, we pick up that slack. To raise fees only on seniors - and in a way that happens if the discount disappears - then it all falls on ONE group. Which means an average rise of $9 per night in NPS campgrounds. Instead, raise fees for every camper only a buck or two. That way, everyone pays a little, and the seniors still get a break ... we've been paying all our lives in taxes and fees, so a little help after we retire allows us to spend more time in the parks, and spend more bucks as well while we do it.

[BoonHauler]

CA traveler2, Restless Diesel, rjij, and profdan139, ALL great posts as well and a breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned.

Dan, glad to hear you took the time to look into Agenda 21 (now called Agenda 2030).

A lot of so called 'conspiracy theories' are in fact based in reality.