High Sierra Topix

dave54 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 8:40 pm

FrankPS wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 6:07 am

dave54 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 3:39 pm They are so fiscally tight they make Ebenezer Scrooge look like a drunken sailor on shore leave. If they gain influence the budgets of all the land agencies will be devastated. If they remain in the background then perhaps it won't be as bad.

It's about time we got some fiscal restraint in our government. Bring on the tightness!

We all want the deficit brought under control. However, to do so means a price is paid. This is the price.

It's not where I would choose to make the cuts, that's for sure.

I don't like the cuts, either. But I understand why.
If we accept the Utilitarian Principle -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- then I begrudgingly admit public land trail/campground maintenance and forest field surveys are a lower priority on the list.

dave54 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 11:26 am I don't like the cuts, either. But I understand why.
If we accept the Utilitarian Principle -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- then I begrudgingly admit public land trail/campground maintenance and forest field surveys are a lower priority on the list.

Yeah, it is hard to argue that helping wealthy Americans spend their vacation time outdoors is the best use of limited funds. I expect the amount of tourism dollars that 99% of USFS trails generate is pretty minimal.

It interested me that Randy Morgenson was an advocate for letting certain trails become abandoned when I read the Last Season. I suppose his motives were preservation, but picking a trail to let go may be more than a thought exercise in the near future.

It is interesting that the Wind River Indian Reservation (Arapaho/Shoshone) does not maintain trails. The few trails that are maintained are done by the one outfitter and voluntary scout troupes. There are only two well maintained trails - outfitter does this for his business. Trails that get enough use have cairns on detours around deadfall. The USGS map is pretty accurate on the old trails so even if occasionally missing you can usually find them. Add to the lack of maintained trails the access roads are long and horrible. The end result is a much more "wilderness" feeling. As in the Sierra, once you get above timber you really do not need trails. One big difference is that there are TONS of elk, moose, deer, mountain sheep that make lots of game trails.

I once divided the Forest Service Wilderness and Recreation budget by the number of Wilderness visitor-days and it came to over $42 per person per day. That was several years ago, I don't have the current numbers.
So a permit cost for 4 people on a weeklong trip should be...? You do the math.
That makes the complaints about backcountry permit fees sound petty. Also negates the arguments about grazing fees, since hikers are not 'paying their fair share' either.

Doesn't the "Wilderness and Recreation" budget also cover front-country recreation, such as developed campgrounds and picnic areas, and trail maintenance outside wilderness, and monitoring of ski areas with NF leases?
-Phil

Perhaps the recent passage of the EXPLORE Act will be of assistance.

Now it looks like NPS too. Including Firefighters and SAR.

Now about 10% of the permanent FS staff is being terminated.

FrankPS wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 6:07 am It's about time we got some fiscal restraint in our government. Bring on the tightness!

Wish granted!