Sad state of national parks and public lands.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

On our way to Lassen Volcanic National Park.

On a national forest rest stop and vista point, wifey went to the rest room.

But it was posted "Closed due to lack of funding."

And down on these national forest roads are trucks barreling down with full loads of logged timbers on the national forest.

It's not hard to do the math that one of those trucks can. pay for the maintenance of that entire rest stop and the rest rooms.

Bigly sad!

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Armand_C wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
On our way to Lassen Volcanic National Park.

On a national forest rest stop and vista point, wifey went to the rest room.

But it was posted "Closed due to lack of funding."

And down on these national forest roads are trucks barreling down with full loads of logged timbers on the national forest.

It's not hard to do the math that one of those trucks can. pay for the maintenance of that entire rest stop and the rest rooms.

Bigly sad!

Interesting, I live near Lassen National Park, and all UFSF land on the Lassen National Forest is closed due to COVID. I'm curious why the sign would say due to lack of funds. Which National Forest was that? Lassen NF? or Shasta NF? they both have boundaries near the park. The latest update on opening is through June 11, 2020, so we'll see what happens. They've already extended the closure twice.

We camped in Eaglee Lake Campground and all others are open since Memorial Day.

We see a posting that Manzanita in Lassen Volcanic National Park opening June 1 (I have not updated myself if they did).

The posted toilet is definitely within the National Forest as it's the only one between Old Station and Lassen Volcanic National Park entrance. If it's closed for Covid, it would have stated so. Logically, why bother to give another reason?

[cptqueeg]

Armand_C wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
On our way to Lassen Volcanic National Park.

On a national forest rest stop and vista point, wifey went to the rest room.

But it was posted "Closed due to lack of funding."

And down on these national forest roads are trucks barreling down with full loads of logged timbers on the national forest.

It's not hard to do the math that one of those trucks can. pay for the maintenance of that entire rest stop and the rest rooms.

Bigly sad!

Interesting, I live near Lassen National Park, and all UFSF land on the Lassen National Forest is closed due to COVID. I'm curious why the sign would say due to lack of funds. Which National Forest was that? Lassen NF? or Shasta NF? they both have boundaries near the park. The latest update on opening is through June 11, 2020, so we'll see what happens. They've already extended the closure twice.

Please read the order and you will see that NOT "all Lassen NF land is closed", in fact the closures are for the "land" just some recreation sites. There are some developed recreation sites still open even.

Perhaps the lack of funding signs were posted last fall and then never removed this spring due to covid.



https://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/lassen/alerts-notices

[Armand_C]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
On our way to Lassen Volcanic National Park.

On a national forest rest stop and vista point, wifey went to the rest room.

But it was posted "Closed due to lack of funding."

And down on these national forest roads are trucks barreling down with full loads of logged timbers on the national forest.

It's not hard to do the math that one of those trucks can. pay for the maintenance of that entire rest stop and the rest rooms.

Bigly sad!

Interesting, I live near Lassen National Park, and all UFSF land on the Lassen National Forest is closed due to COVID. I'm curious why the sign would say due to lack of funds. Which National Forest was that? Lassen NF? or Shasta NF? they both have boundaries near the park. The latest update on opening is through June 11, 2020, so we'll see what happens. They've already extended the closure twice.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

dave54 wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
Nothing political, just data and info, the current administration cut National Park's budget by 13% where they are saying that they are already behind in repairs and maintenance -- something that obvious and we are seeing.

And of course, by logic, if you are behind in those areas, how can you even do improvements?

The NPS requested less money in the FY2020 budget documents. I could not find an explanation why they requested less money from FY2019. I can only speculate a realignment of some programs meant they could get by with less, but I really do not know.

Good you italicized the "requested".

It's must be like our budgeting process for a global multinational company I worked for.

HQ, in the government, federal bosses, will mandate say, 3% reduction in overhead across the board for everyone.

That's an no-if-or-but mandate, so we incorporate that in our budget. Our only option is to make that reduction in the account or budget line item we want.

So when we finalize the budget, the "request" has that 3% reduction.

[dave54]

There is a general lack of knowledge among lay people of how government budgets work. It is not like your household budget.

Suppose you budget $300 this month for fuel for your family car. In most months that comes pretty close. About the middle of the month you realize you are driving a lot less, and the price of fuel is way down. So you are halfway through the month and you have only spent $75. You think to yourself “This is great! I can use the savings to buy a new grill for my RV.” That is reasonable, and most people would congratulate you on your financial savvy.

The government cannot do that. If you ran your finances the way the government is mandated, you cannot spend the fuel savings on anything else. That money is for fuel and can only be spent on fuel. That you have money left over in your fuel budget while your grill has died and no longer usable is irrelevant. You are forbidden by law to spend the surplus in your fuel account on a new grill. You cannot even go to the gas station on the last day of the month and top off your tanks in anticipation of a fuel price increase and a big trip next month. That is not allowed either.

This is an oversimplification, but it illustrates the point. Funds allocated for one purpose cannot be used for other purposes (thank you Al Gore…).

There is very little wiggle room to reallocate funds. Sometimes the regulations allow, say, 10% of program A funds may be spent on program B, and 15% of program B may be spent with an equal amount from program C on a joint project, if it can be completed within this fiscal year. A good agency budget analyst is a valuable person in these cases, knowing how to move funding around to where needed while staying within the law. There is still a very limited amount of creative accounting you can get away with, though.

[dave54]

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
Nothing political, just data and info, the current administration cut National Park's budget by 13% where they are saying that they are already behind in repairs and maintenance -- something that obvious and we are seeing.

And of course, by logic, if you are behind in those areas, how can you even do improvements?

The NPS requested less money in the FY2020 budget documents. I could not find an explanation why they requested less money from FY2019. I can only speculate a realignment of some programs meant they could get by with less, but I really do not know.

[cptqueeg]

Ggl Great America Outdoors Act.

In a effort to conserve the R senate majority this bill is likely to pass. Along w money to purchase land for preservation it also allocates $9.5B over 5 years for the backlog of work in the NPs.

[ppine]

There is a lot of folklore and misinformation regarding forestry, especially in National Parks. Yellowstone was the first national park in the world, and has been protected since the 1870s. No logging, no hunting, no grazing and plenty of fire suppression. Lodgepole pine is the main species on the Plateau which is a fire adapted species. It readily reseeds after fires.

All of that protection and no logging has created overstocked dense stands of lodgepole pine ripe for fires. We saw it in 1988 when 2/3 of the Park burned and the NPS did little to stop it during the driest summer in a century. Overstocked stands of lodgepole are subject to insect outbreaks, especially during dry years. The insects readily spread from tree to tree, which have little defense in dry years with too many trees per acre. Slightly warming temperatures, 1.5 degrees C on average, have little to do with the spread of insects in a part of the coutnry that is -40 degrees F in the winter.

Problems with the forests in the Park are a direct result of fire suppression for over 100 years and the elimination of logging as a management tool. The NPS has done a poor job of wildfire management historically. Now they are starting to understand the role of fire in managing lodgepole pine.

[Yosemite_Sam1]

Nothing political, just data and info, the current administration cut National Park's budget by 13% where they are saying that they are already behind in repairs and maintenance -- something that obvious and we are seeing.

And of course, by logic, if you are behind in those areas, how can you even do improvements?

[cptqueeg]

Update from Yellowstone Forever

June 6, 2020



Yellowstone Forever (YF), like many organizations around the country, has been severely impacted by the pandemic. We are restructuring YF in order to focus on our mission—supporting Yellowstone National Park through financial contributions—and to ensure the long-term viability of our nonprofit organization so that we can maintain the trust and support of our many supporters and donors.

As part of this restructuring, the board of directors and the acting president & CEO have decided to reduce the number of full-time employees and to suspend the work of the YF Institute. This decision was extremely difficult because it impacts dedicated and expert professionals who care deeply about Yellowstone National Park and who have been equally committed to YF and its mission.

We believe in the mission of the Institute, but current circumstances prevent us from opening this year and likely next year.

Without taking both of these steps, YF could not survive. YF will continue to take steps to reduce operational costs in order to maximize fundraising. With this new, leaner structure, YF will be focused on projects designed to raise money for direct contribution to the park.

Yellowstone National Park fully understands and supports this restructuring plan and believes that it will help make YF become a stronger partner moving forward.

[jesseannie]

cptqueeg wrote:

profdant139 wrote:
cptqueeg, it is interesting that you should say "enjoy it before it goes up in smoke." When we were in Idaho a couple of years ago, that is exactly what the ranger said to us -- the bark beetle was spreading, and the forests were on borrowed time.

Someday the forests will recover, long after I am gone.

The mtn pine bark beetle which attacks mainly lodgepole pines is now no longer limited by elevation because winter temps have moderated (both low temps and the length of time at low temps) so it's attacking limber pine in the alpine zone which is now a threatened species.

There are many other bugs out there working away on all the other species of trees as well. Limited moisture puts stress on trees and they are no longer able to repel attacks from bugs. The dying and dead trees then are prime fuel for fires.

When I was on fire crews here in central Idaho way back before the turn of century we called the forests the asbestos forest. That is no longer the case as virtually the entire region has been burned over in the last 20 years.

While some foresters wanted to start cutting way back when timid managers and an others kept that from happening. It surely would have looked different than it was, but folks couldn't accept the inevitable. Things are never going to remain the same and I doubt the forest in Central Idaho will ever be anything like what it once was.

Did you see Yellowstone Forever closed up could not naked financially. Too bad!

[ppine]

National Parks have been chronically under funded for years. It has happened just like the rest of the infrastructure in the US. US Dept of the Interior.

Timber receipts go to the National Forest, part of the USFS and Dept of Agriculture. A portion of them stay on the Forest and the rest go to the National Treasury.

Logging has been greatly reduced in the last 30 years due to environmental law suits and complications with the National Environmental Policy Act. Less money has been available to Forests and local communities as a result.

Support logging and thinning to create fire resilience and help fund facilities on National Forests. Our forests suffer from neglect.

,

[cptqueeg]

dave54 wrote:
The National Parks do not show a profit from entrance fees. The total collected for FY2020 is projected to be $312 million. The total NPS budget for FY2020 is $3.5 billion. So the entrance fees reflect less than 10% of the budget.

Of the 419 units of the National Park System, only 109 charge entrance fees. 80% of the fees collected are retained by the individual Park (100% if the unit collects less than $500,000). The other 20% is pooled and distributed to the Parks that do not collect entrance fees. Under current law, none of the fees are returned to the Treasury. The fees can only be spent on capital improvements. It cannot go to salaries or routine operations.

However... this got no media ink. In 2019 the Trump Administration changed the accounting rules for the fund. Previously, the fees could not be spent on salaries under any circumstances. This is why in the last government budget shutdown the Parks were closed even though there were hundreds of millions of dollars available in the fund. The Trump administration changed changed the rule so in the even of a future budget impasse, the NPS may borrow against the fund to keep the Parks open, and repay the fund when the impasse ends and general funds are available. The old rule was part of Al Gore's 'Reforming Government' initiative in the 1990s.

Thanks for correcting me on NPS. The NPS also generates another billion from concessions as well. 80% stays in the Park that it's generated in and the other 20% goes to other parks.

[dave54]

The National Parks do not show a profit from entrance fees. The total collected for FY2020 is projected to be $312 million. The total NPS budget for FY2020 is $3.5 billion. So the entrance fees reflect less than 10% of the budget.

Of the 419 units of the National Park System, only 109 charge entrance fees. 80% of the fees collected are retained by the individual Park (100% if the unit collects less than $500,000). The other 20% is pooled and distributed to the Parks that do not collect entrance fees. Under current law, none of the fees are returned to the Treasury. The fees can only be spent on capital improvements. It cannot go to salaries or routine operations.

However... this got no media ink. In 2019 the Trump Administration changed the accounting rules for the fund. Previously, the fees could not be spent on salaries under any circumstances. This is why in the last government budget shutdown the Parks were closed even though there were hundreds of millions of dollars available in the fund. The Trump administration changed changed the rule so in the even of a future budget impasse, the NPS may borrow against the fund to keep the Parks open, and repay the fund when the impasse ends and general funds are available. The old rule was part of Al Gore's 'Reforming Government' initiative in the 1990s.