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?

[bgum]

For an example of what private ownership will do look to Florida. With all the condominiums "We the people " can't get to the beach which the condos think they own until beach erosion occurs at which time they want "We the people " to save their condo.

[RPreeb]

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.

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.

[Lantley]

Truth is none of us know what will happen. It seems pointless to speculate.
I don't imagine the sky is going to fall. There has been camping before this administration. There will still be camping during and after this administration.
Don't worry funding the parks is an age old issue that will never go away.

[scrubjaysnest]

It's all got to get through the congress what ever happens.

[BoonHauler]

korbe wrote:
In my crazy way of looking at the environment in general, and California State Parks specifically, is that the current philosophy is that we humans and our RV's are the problem and are the one's that have created all the negative impacts within our environment and fewer park visitors would mean less negative impacts, JMHO.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[BoonHauler]

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.

X2

I'm hoping a Trump administration will be constructive for OHV and Public Land Access in general.

I hear one of the son's is an OHV enthusiast but have not confirmed that information myself.

[dahkota]

The federal government doesn't 'take control of lands' unless it is given to them by donation or trade. It then charges user fees to use it rather than just having ALL taxpayers foot the bill. Yes, it would be nice if it was free, but someone has to pay for the ranger, police, roads, etc. that exist on the federal land in use. Wanting it free and wanting lower taxes just isn't feasible.

Yes, the Fed controls the land it owns. However, the alternative for all those beautiful lakes is that they are in private hands - you can bet your butt you would either loose access altogether or have to pay exorbitant fees to use it. At least then you might see capital improvements but would you be willing to pay the fees for them?

The feds are "we the people" and chances are, if they shrink any recreation areas, it is because the people who used them abused them. If people took care of their natural resource areas like they do their own homes (wait, maybe they do), more money wouldn't be needed to repair and maintain those places and higher fees wouldn't be imposed to discourage people from visiting.

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.

What do I think will happen? Well, I know that things in government move slowly so I am spending this year touring much of the west - it many not be available to me the year after. I am concentrating on Forest Service and BLM sites in particular - those are the most vulnerable.

[evanrem]

In WI they just cut all state funding for the State park system (was 4.2 million) and parks are now responsible for funding themselves. Our state park system is one of the nicer ones I have been to so it will be interesting to see what happens to them. So far they have raised camping fees by 10 per night and are thinking about adding hotels to some of the parks for overnight visitors and raising fees, or doing corporate sponsorship. I'm not sure of all of the details as I just read an article a few weeks ago about it. To bad we cant choose where are taxes are spent.

[Bumpyroad]

profdant139 wrote:
Azdryheat, I feel your pain! But here is the question -- given what you know about the incoming administration, what do you predict is actually going to happen? For example, do you agree with my guess that fees may go up in order to offset the tax cuts and the loss of revenue? Or in order to fund capital improvements? Or will things just stay the same as they've been?

Grab your crystal ball and join the party! 😉 (I was going to say that your guess is as good as mine, but it might be better than mine.)

I would guess that fees will go up so that the users and not all taxpayers will shoulder the burden of upkeep, etc.
bumpy

[3oaks]

korbe wrote:
In my crazy way of looking at the environment in general, and California State Parks specifically, is that the current philosophy is that we humans and our RV's are the problem and are the one's that have created all the negative impacts within our environment and fewer park visitors would mean less negative impacts, JMHO.

Many RVers and park visitors may not like here it, but humans are the biggest problem to preserving our wilderness areas and the biggest danger to our entire Ecosystem. Our national forests are being trashed and monuments destroyed by ignorant people who just don't care! :M

[path1]

After looking up where Cathy McMorris Rodgers gets a lot of her money from... maybe campgrounds will get a first aid kit.

6 out of 20 of her contributors are from medical industry. After reading your post, I was thinking all were either gas, oil or mining.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=I&cid=N00026314&newMem=N&recs=20&cycle=2016

[profdant139]

Azdryheat, I feel your pain! But here is the question -- given what you know about the incoming administration, what do you predict is actually going to happen? For example, do you agree with my guess that fees may go up in order to offset the tax cuts and the loss of revenue? Or in order to fund capital improvements? Or will things just stay the same as they've been?

Grab your crystal ball and join the party! 😉 (I was going to say that your guess is as good as mine, but it might be better than mine.)

[azdryheat]

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.

[azrving]

I believe there was a recent post about the geezer pass going up to $80 very soon. I also understand that in a couple months it will be ok for people to pass gas in Cali without having to capture and recycle it.

[profdant139]

Gosh, folks, I am strenuously avoiding being political. I am simply assuming the administration is going to do what it says it will do. That's a given. How I feel about it is irrelevant. As the proverb says, "When the elephants dance, the mice must be alert." (If there is no such proverb, there should be.) We are the mice -- we have no power. There is no point in criticizing or praising the dance. We simply dodge and duck.

The two narrow questions are "what are they likely to do, and how will this impact our camping trips over the next several years?" And if my predictions (see above) are close to the mark, the answer is that what they do will have some positive effects on RV travel and some negative effects.

I forgot to mention, by the way, that there is a lot of talk about resurfacing the interstates as part of the infrastructure program. That could be a good thing for RVers, if and when it happens.