GPNF Developed Rec Site Survey: Your responses needed

[drm]

I don't see the word "highly" in there. They are listed as developed recreation sites, which in the case of those trailheads means the kiosk. Clearly any interest in closing any will be focused on those that cost a lot of money to maintain, and given the horrid state of the road to Grassy Knoll, they aren't spending any money there. But roads that are costly to maintain sometimes also get closed. I think I mentioned in another thread that the Mt Adams District has had it's road maintenance staff cut in half this year, with cuts in equipment too. I just assume this is significantly due to the cost of fighting fires - the new funding mechanism adopted recently does not go into effect till 2020.

[walkin62]

I decline to participate in the USFS BS survey. They can take their agenda and shove it where the sun don't shine. And the next time I see a USFS employee, I'll tell them that in person, possibly in in language much less refined than what I've used above.

While I appreciate the sentiment, please don't take your frustration out on the Forest Service worker in the field. They don't make the rules. You need to go farther up the chain for that. I've worked for the Forest Service, and I can tell you that most people who work there do so because they care about the outdoors and the future of their public lands. Many of them, including myself, are no happier than you are about the issues surrounding fees and what areas may or may not be available down the road. The guy in the field certainly knows the issues on the ground better than the policymaker in Washington, but he unfortunately gets to take the brunt of public opinion.

[Bosterson]

I don't see the word "highly" in there.

It's not in the survey itself, but on the FS page under the dropdown for "What have we learned so far?" in the Safe & Sustainable Recreation section above the link to the survey. It is definitely weird wording - "highly developed" is not a phrase I would think would apply to trailheads as an entire category - like you note, Grassy Knoll is perhaps "barely developed"...

...please don't take your frustration out on the Forest Service worker in the field. They don't make the rules. You need to go farther up the chain for that. ...The guy in the field certainly knows the issues on the ground better than the policymaker in Washington, but he unfortunately gets to take the brunt of public opinion.

Thank you. I believe this is what's called "shooting the messenger," Chip.

[Webfoot]

I don't see the word "highly" in there.

It is under the "What have we learned so far?" drop-down on the linked page.

An initial analysis of 210 highly developed recreation sites (campgrounds, restrooms, visitor facility locations, trailheads, and cabin/lookout rentals) evaluated facility conditions including safety, cost/benefit analysis, facility life cycle costs, and use by the public.

The analysis revealed over $1.7 million dollars would be needed annually to adequately operate and maintain these sites at their current level, which results in a funding shortfall of over $700,000. In addition, deferred maintenance on these sites is over $10 million, far above Forest Service funding capacity.

Later the page links to a PDF that lists about 210 sites (214 if I counted right) yet many of these are clearly not "highly developed." This dishonest language makes me highly skeptical of anything else they write. At the very least I would like to see a detailed breakdown of that analysis.

[Chip Down]

Okay, okay, I'll compromise. I won't approach a U$F$ employee solely for the purpose of harassment. If they leave me alone, I'll leave them alone. I'm considering writing a vituperative letter though.