3 ms·

I recently tried to go hiking in Colorado with my dad in an area that he remembered being a great hike ~20 years ago. Well, we get there, and we realize the maj

by Smudge 12y ago

I recently tried to go hiking in Colorado with my dad in an area that he remembered being a great hike ~20 years ago. Well, we get there, and we realize the majority of the area has become an RV camp littered with dirt bike trails, despite it being managed by the National Forest Service. We still had an okay time hiking once we got to the main trail, but the whole area around it was a dust bowl, certainly not helped by all of the erosion. As we were leaving, he remarked that this is what happens when your country's forest service is part of the Department of Agriculture (tasked with policy on farming, agriculture, food, and using resources economically) instead of the Department of the Interior (housing the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, and tasked with conserving federal land and resources). It's a real shame that the Forest Service, while doing an okay job maintaining much of the land, is part of a wider branch that is incentivized to promote economic growth and treat resources as things to be used instead of preserved. It just doesn't seem to fit in with that branch of the government.

sliverstorm 12y ago
That structure isn't a mistake. The USFS & the NPS have distinct goals. Borrowing from Wiki: Land management of (national forests) focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. USFS does not exist for pristine preservation of deep wilderness. The goal of the NPS is preservation & low-impact recreation. The goal of the USFS is responsible resource exploitation. Both goals have their place. We need both organizations. The key then is wise choices in designating the land.
- Smudge 12y ago
  I understand the distinction and the philosophical differences. The USFS and USDA are, overall, a good thing for us to have, and they clearly serve a different role from the National Park Service, et. al. That said, having seen first-hand an example of "low-impact recreation", I felt that the USFS was over-stepping its bounds. There was even a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office on whether or not the USFS should be moved from Agriculture to Interior[1], the result of which seems to have re-enforced the cultural differences these two departments have had since their founding. But I'll admit that the case of the RVs and dirt bikes might have been an outlier. I was simply not impressed by what I saw, and I hope that it's not happening much elsewhere in our national forests. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223
- jessaustin 12y ago
  The problem, then, is somehow getting rid of the four-wheeler and jeep drivers. (I actually haven't noticed dirt-bikers themselves causing many problems, but they're often accompanied by the others.) As long as they exist they'll be able to lobby the USFS for off-trail access rights to certain locations. In the vast majority of national forest acreage, they are restricted to roads and trails that can handle them just fine. However, a part of me wants to keep the motor enthusiasts around. They obviously cause more damage than I do as a hunter, so while they are tolerated in places I expect I'll also be tolerated.
  - character0 12y ago
    I think a less black and white approach needs to be taken with recreation in our parks. You alienate a whole group of people that could be some of your greatest supporters by not creating an environment of trust and mutual respect. Increasing programs to educate and incorporate people that want to explore recreation activities outside of traditional hiking will be a huge aid in getting people interested in conservation.
jessaustin 12y ago
...instead of the Department of the Interior... Before praising that department too much, you might want to visit some BLM land. You might be disappointed. The rule seems to be that locals can do or dump anything they want there, unless it interferes with mineral extraction.
- Smudge 12y ago
  Yeah, my intent is not to overly praise that particular department, as much as highlight the difference in their mission statements. Whether or not they adhere to those is another thing.

by Smudge 12y ago

sliverstorm 12y ago

That structure isn't a mistake. The USFS & the NPS have distinct goals. Borrowing from Wiki: Land management of (national forests) focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. USFS does not exist for pristine preservation of deep wilderness. The goal of the NPS is preservation & low-impact recreation. The goal of the USFS is responsible resource exploitation. Both goals have their place. We need both organizations. The key then is wise choices in designating the land.

Smudge 12y ago
I understand the distinction and the philosophical differences. The USFS and USDA are, overall, a good thing for us to have, and they clearly serve a different role from the National Park Service, et. al. That said, having seen first-hand an example of "low-impact recreation", I felt that the USFS was over-stepping its bounds. There was even a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office on whether or not the USFS should be moved from Agriculture to Interior[1], the result of which seems to have re-enforced the cultural differences these two departments have had since their founding. But I'll admit that the case of the RVs and dirt bikes might have been an outlier. I was simply not impressed by what I saw, and I hope that it's not happening much elsewhere in our national forests. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-223
jessaustin 12y ago
The problem, then, is somehow getting rid of the four-wheeler and jeep drivers. (I actually haven't noticed dirt-bikers themselves causing many problems, but they're often accompanied by the others.) As long as they exist they'll be able to lobby the USFS for off-trail access rights to certain locations. In the vast majority of national forest acreage, they are restricted to roads and trails that can handle them just fine. However, a part of me wants to keep the motor enthusiasts around. They obviously cause more damage than I do as a hunter, so while they are tolerated in places I expect I'll also be tolerated.
- character0 12y ago
  I think a less black and white approach needs to be taken with recreation in our parks. You alienate a whole group of people that could be some of your greatest supporters by not creating an environment of trust and mutual respect. Increasing programs to educate and incorporate people that want to explore recreation activities outside of traditional hiking will be a huge aid in getting people interested in conservation.

jessaustin 12y ago

...instead of the Department of the Interior... Before praising that department too much, you might want to visit some BLM land. You might be disappointed. The rule seems to be that locals can do or dump anything they want there, unless it interferes with mineral extraction.

Smudge 12y ago
Yeah, my intent is not to overly praise that particular department, as much as highlight the difference in their mission statements. Whether or not they adhere to those is another thing.