Assault on National Parks continues

[dave54]

No doubt you have already heard the administration's proposal to scale back the NPS and transfer 'smaller and lesser used Parks' to the states.

Channel Islands NP and Santa Monica Mountains NRA were two identified by the House Natural Resources Committee.

[FrankPS]

What's wrong with having the states manage some of the areas? What makes this an "assault"?

[c9h13no3]

What's wrong with having the states manage some of the areas? What makes this an "assault"?

I assume it comes with cuts to federal funding.

It is the classic question: Why are people in Florida paying (via federal tax dollars) for a park in Santa Monica? Why are Californians paying for a sixth lane to be added on a freeway in Florida? It boils down to how equal you want the states to be. Would you rather they concentrate amenities in the rich states that can afford to pay for them alone, or spread out federal spending equally?

Course, that's not really what's happening with the Trump administration, they're mostly just trying to pull as many federal dollars out of blue states as they can, because from what I can tell their policy position is summed up in one word: spite.

[Hillclimber2011]

I'll offer a different perspective as objectively as I can, the intention is not to inflame anyone's political sensitivities (even though I usually don't have any problem doing that) but rather daylight some practical truth. The current administration is about reducing Federal government, and Federal waste. You may have noticed that Southern California burns pretty good lately, and that if vegetation isn't removed through management, it will be removed by nature.

The Park service in general has a wildly differing approach to land management than the State of California and lands under its jurisdiction, which include most private property and State Parks, the results are observable and repeatable. The State of California has what is now the largest fire department in the nation, and aggressively suppresses fire on lands of its jurisdiction, this is not National Park policy. Santa Monica Mountains national recreation area is highly prone to fire, heavily brush covered, and bordered by heavy population, which means higher threat to the park as well as the community in the event of fire. The State also aggressively pursues fuel reduction projects in Winter, a win for both the park guests as well as the community. The Park Service largely prohibits the use of fire retardant on its lands, the State does not.

Look closer and you'll see this is a win for both the park guest as well as the community, it's not always about the mean orange man.

[dave54]

Santa Monica Mountains NRA is not a good example.
It is federal land, but is LRA for fire -- Local Responsibility Area. Los Angeles and Ventura Counties provide fire protection on the federal land. The NPS gives some funding to the counties for that cost. That funding could end under the trump proposal. So the counties would still provide the service (no change), but would receive no funding. How much the state would reimburse the counties is unknown as of now.

The state of California has managed the state parks well, for the most part. Has used them as political pawns in the past, but mostly good. However, that would not continue if federal funding did not continue after the transfer (budget pressure would reduce the funding over time, even if the feds started out with payments). They would become a net drain on the state park system.
New Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz came from private industry and Idaho State Lands Commission. He wrote a white paper a few years ago advocating the National Forests be turned over to the states for management while remaining in federal ownership. Collaborative Federalism was his term.
He cited many state forests actually make a profit. That is an apples-oranges example. Most state forests are top quality timberlands and large parts of National Forests are low quality site or non-forested. Plus, state forests are managed to maximize economic return and give only token consideration to non-commodity values. By law, the National Forests are not. They are managed to also provide wildlife habitat, recreation, watersheds, and forage in addition to "improve and protect the forest within the reservation, 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" (Organic Act of 1897). Subsequent legislation like the MUSY, FLPMA, and Wilderness Act further define the functions. Managing the National Forests to maximize timber yield or profit is a violation of several of those laws.

Schultz also directed the Forest Service to aggressively attack all fires with direct tactics. No more managed fire or indirect tactics.

I also disagree the administration is trying to reduce the size of government (it was already smaller than the G7 nations) and eliminate federal waste and fraud. That is a thinly veiled pretext for the restructuring of the entire balance of power in the government. Let's not go there on this forum.

[TahoeJeff]

it's not always about the mean orange man.

Amen brother!

[Hillclimber2011]

It's Federal Land, local government has to operate to the standard of the land owner in that regard, which means limited suppression activities during fires, and limited fuel reduction activities otherwise. It's a perfect example of the effects of differing land management approaches, the local government fire departments mass on the ownership boundary with the necessary resources to put the fire out, I know because my dad did it for 32 years, I did it for 35.

[Hillclimber2011]

"What's wrong with having the states manage some of the areas? What makes this an "assault"? (When you're educated beyond media politics, the answer is "nothing").

[maverick]

Don’t let this discussion drift into politics otherwise it will be locked. Thank you.

[Hillclimber2011]

The first post in this thread was literally regarding a political action, the moderators weren't worried about any post henceforth until there was an alternate viewpoint. If you allow political viewpoints in the future, it would be a good idea to allow all of them for the sake of the community.