USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

[Jesse]

Nice. I try and volunteer too, Washington Trails Association is especially good. Of course the time and money put into volunteer work probably adds up to a lot more than paying $30 a year for a NW Forest Pass, but the impact is easier to observe and it's usually more satisfying. Regardless, taking action and helping out on our public lands seems a lot more constructive that sitting back and criticizing while doing nothing.

[Jesse]

I understand the funding issue and the increase in use, but from my perspective it just does not seem like the USFS prioritizes recreational use at all. It is a "well, I guess we have to do it" kind of mindset - especially for the lesser used areas of the forest.

If you haven't read it, this 2018 article is very enlightening: Plummeting Morale In The Forest Service: Why It Should Matter To Americans Who Love Nature

I read the article, it has some good insights but also seems pretty biased (written by a disgruntled former employee). I will tell you I have met many folks who work for the forest service who care very deeply about the land and providing a quality recreational experience for the public. It's hard to imagine who would go into that line of work without some real passion behind the decision, considering it's not the most financially lucrative career path.

[Water]

If you want to see oppression, imagine what our public lands would look like if they became privatized. I know that a gate permit on the Weyerhauser St. Helens Tree Farm will run you over $100, and there is only a small number of people who they allow to purchase them. That's what truly limiting access looks like.

I see the complaint that the FS needs to build more trails and recreation areas to help spread people out, but also an unwillingness to pay nominal fees to an agency that has become precipitously more and more underfunded as the years go on, and public use explodes. The two desires do not seem compatible to me (doublethink?) Where exactly is the FS expected to get the funding to build these new facilities if not from recreation fees?

Things are always changing, and it just so happens that we are living in a time when recreational demands upon our public lands are at an all time high, while congressional funding is near historic lows. People who complain about their taxpayer dollars don't realize that it's just a fraction of a fraction of pennies on the dollar that goes to funding agencies like the USFS and NPS. Public land management agencies are struggling to adapt a massive rise in overcrowding, trash, vandalism etc at recreation sites in the last decade, thanks in large part to the rise of social media as a popularizing force. Many of the fee dollars collected at these sites go directly back to their upkeep. Now seems like a time that more people than ever are reaping the benefits of public lands, not fewer. These places need maintenance and cleanup. Can you blame an underfunded agency for introducing relatively nominal fees as an answer to this? Not only to keep recreation sites nice but to help limit excessive overcrowding and resultant strain on the very nature people are seeking out? Now seems like a time to appreciate public land management agencies more than ever for the service they provide us, rather than whining about oppression and pining for the "good old days" of unfettered access simply because elements of our culture outside of any agency's control have changed, and they are striving to react as best they can.

wow, it's like you didn't even read anything. MHNF proposed $100 permit to access the top of the mountain. Where did they get the number? They don't even know, they publicly stated they 'threw it out there to see what the public reaction would be'. And they've said once they have a clue about how many people are climbing, they'll have the discussion about limits. And what are the tangible services they've said they'll provide for the permit cost? Possibly unlocking the existing bathroom in the climbers cave of the day lodge, and an improved 'blue bag' of higher quality. They publicly said they'd never direct someone to turn around or descend as they do not want to get into liability of people's choices. So that's what truly limiting access looks like.

While the FS makes it especially difficult to really find out where our public fees go to, as a line item, it is my understanding trail work is one of the cheaper activities. I see what groups like the Siskiyou Mountain Club 'pay' a monthly stipend of $1,500 for crews of young adults to spend their summers working on trails. In older Northwest Forest Pass 'where the money goes' documents I saw that crews of 12 workers were costing $14,000 to run for two weeks in Deschutes National Forest. Near as I can tell the trail work is some of the cheapest stuff the FS can do.

These 'nominal' fees were never, ever, intended to sustain the user-base's use of the forest. As these fees came available existing appropriations were shifted to other, non-recreational uses. So even with increasing fees and permits and increased use, the level to bridge this gap will never be met without extremely high prices. Frankly I have rarely seen permit dollars seem to go back into many sites. There is so much evidence of this. Lookouts that gross thousands and thousands but can't replace a screen in a window, broken cots, or chairs. Volunteers seem to do the majority of the work on them. Trailheads with decrepit picnic tables or non-permanent privys (portapottys). And the FS continues to propose NEW capital improvements despite clear evidence of budget shortfalls that have continuously increased deferred maintenance backlogs. Reconcile that shit for me please.

It's peculiar that capital improvements like the redesign of the Mirror Lake Trailhead can take millions, the update of the Zig Zag Ranger station, etc, all seem to 'get done' just fine when it's the FS's agenda to do it. Even the implementation of permit systems, there are ample resources in the office to think these plans up, spend time on committees, public outreach, and enforcement actions at trailheads. I can think of the Lewis River corridor specifically, brand new permit system and each time I was there last summer they have teams of FS trucks cruising up and down issuing $80 violations on cars. Where the hell are these resources when it comes to say...build a new trail, a new low-amenity campground, brushing out of trails, dinging someone with a fire in alpine meadows or above treeline, issuing a ticket when they see them litter at the swim hole. Now that's a bridge too far!! It's like healthcare and hospitals, tell me you'd be shocked if there was more money going into managerial level administration than facilities and boots-on-the-ground work at the Forest Service 20-40 years ago, as a ratio of the budget. Their funding is funny, the trucks they drive never seem that old. All about priorities. Dispersed walk-in-the-woods on a trail type recreation is really not a priority, it just isn't. There's little to monetize, little for administrators to do, and little to apply for future funding.

It's public land and public trust. They are not reacting as best they can. They are reacting expediently. It's even in direct conflict with their equitable access. 'Nominal' fees today. Tomorrow you've got a portfolio of data about the demand. Next week management is bid out entirely to for-profit organization. Next year the fee is no longer nominal.

[retired jerry]

yeah!

I have no problem with restrictions to support wildlife like closing Cape Horn when there are birds nesting

But these restrictions just seem to be for aesthetics - FS people feel like there are too many people for a wilderness so they restrict use

If people want to go where it's crowded, fine, let them as long as they're not seriously impacting wildlife

The use at high altitude is concentrated to a few routes so any impact on wildlife is minimal

[Bosterson]

The use at high altitude is concentrated to a few routes so any impact on wildlife is minimal

Don't forget that one of the justifications for the new Hood climbing permit was their concern about "impacts" on parking.

At the ski lodge.

[retired jerry]

which makes no sense

it's like they've decided to do the restrictions, now they're just coming up with rhetorical arguments to support their position

Just like the internet in general - often just arguing without trying to understand problems and solutions

[Water]

it's like they've decided to do the restrictions, now they're just coming up with rhetorical arguments to support their position

just like they've said climber's impact has negatively affected the environment and never presented a shred of empirical/statistical evidence of this. No test that White River has higher fecal coliform bacteria than a decade ago. Nothing. Nor any methodology and measurement & verification plan which they'll use to track the efficacy of the permit in reducing environmental impact. Same applies to safety. Have there been more accidents, per capita, more fatalities? How will this be tracked with a permit system going forward, by what methods/metrics, to demonstrate the permit is effective at educating climbers and increasing safety, reducing accidents/fatalities?

If they want to traffic in anecdotes while creating additional barriers to entry for public access to public lands, that's a bad faith effort from a management agency.

[Jesse]

If you want to see oppression, imagine what our public lands would look like if they became privatized. I know that a gate permit on the Weyerhauser St. Helens Tree Farm will run you over $100, and there is only a small number of people who they allow to purchase them. That's what truly limiting access looks like.

I see the complaint that the FS needs to build more trails and recreation areas to help spread people out, but also an unwillingness to pay nominal fees to an agency that has become precipitously more and more underfunded as the years go on, and public use explodes. The two desires do not seem compatible to me (doublethink?) Where exactly is the FS expected to get the funding to build these new facilities if not from recreation fees?

Things are always changing, and it just so happens that we are living in a time when recreational demands upon our public lands are at an all time high, while congressional funding is near historic lows. People who complain about their taxpayer dollars don't realize that it's just a fraction of a fraction of pennies on the dollar that goes to funding agencies like the USFS and NPS. Public land management agencies are struggling to adapt a massive rise in overcrowding, trash, vandalism etc at recreation sites in the last decade, thanks in large part to the rise of social media as a popularizing force. Many of the fee dollars collected at these sites go directly back to their upkeep. Now seems like a time that more people than ever are reaping the benefits of public lands, not fewer. These places need maintenance and cleanup. Can you blame an underfunded agency for introducing relatively nominal fees as an answer to this? Not only to keep recreation sites nice but to help limit excessive overcrowding and resultant strain on the very nature people are seeking out? Now seems like a time to appreciate public land management agencies more than ever for the service they provide us, rather than whining about oppression and pining for the "good old days" of unfettered access simply because elements of our culture outside of any agency's control have changed, and they are striving to react as best they can.

wow, it's like you didn't even read anything. MHNF proposed $100 permit to access the top of the mountain. Where did they get the number? They don't even know, they publicly stated they 'threw it out there to see what the public reaction would be'. And they've said once they have a clue about how many people are climbing, they'll have the discussion about limits. And what are the tangible services they've said they'll provide for the permit cost? Possibly unlocking the existing bathroom in the climbers cave of the day lodge, and an improved 'blue bag' of higher quality. They publicly said they'd never direct someone to turn around or descend as they do not want to get into liability of people's choices. So that's what truly limiting access looks like.

While the FS makes it especially difficult to really find out where our public fees go to, as a line item, it is my understanding trail work is one of the cheaper activities. I see what groups like the Siskiyou Mountain Club 'pay' a monthly stipend of $1,500 for crews of young adults to spend their summers working on trails. In older Northwest Forest Pass 'where the money goes' documents I saw that crews of 12 workers were costing $14,000 to run for two weeks in Deschutes National Forest. Near as I can tell the trail work is some of the cheapest stuff the FS can do.

These 'nominal' fees were never, ever, intended to sustain the user-base's use of the forest. As these fees came available existing appropriations were shifted to other, non-recreational uses. So even with increasing fees and permits and increased use, the level to bridge this gap will never be met without extremely high prices. Frankly I have rarely seen permit dollars seem to go back into many sites. There is so much evidence of this. Lookouts that gross thousands and thousands but can't replace a screen in a window, broken cots, or chairs. Volunteers seem to do the majority of the work on them. Trailheads with decrepit picnic tables or non-permanent privys (portapottys). And the FS continues to propose NEW capital improvements despite clear evidence of budget shortfalls that have continuously increased deferred maintenance backlogs. Reconcile that shit for me please.

It's peculiar that capital improvements like the redesign of the Mirror Lake Trailhead can take millions, the update of the Zig Zag Ranger station, etc, all seem to 'get done' just fine when it's the FS's agenda to do it. Even the implementation of permit systems, there are ample resources in the office to think these plans up, spend time on committees, public outreach, and enforcement actions at trailheads. I can think of the Lewis River corridor specifically, brand new permit system and each time I was there last summer they have teams of FS trucks cruising up and down issuing $80 violations on cars. Where the hell are these resources when it comes to say...build a new trail, a new low-amenity campground, brushing out of trails, dinging someone with a fire in alpine meadows or above treeline, issuing a ticket when they see them litter at the swim hole. Now that's a bridge too far!! It's like healthcare and hospitals, tell me you'd be shocked if there was more money going into managerial level administration than facilities and boots-on-the-ground work at the Forest Service 20-40 years ago, as a ratio of the budget. Their funding is funny, the trucks they drive never seem that old. All about priorities. Dispersed walk-in-the-woods on a trail type recreation is really not a priority, it just isn't. There's little to monetize, little for administrators to do, and little to apply for future funding.

It's public land and public trust. They are not reacting as best they can. They are reacting expediently. It's even in direct conflict with their equitable access. 'Nominal' fees today. Tomorrow you've got a portfolio of data about the demand. Next week management is bid out entirely to for-profit organization. Next year the fee is no longer nominal.

I don't know. I have been recreating on forest service lands in the PNW since I was in my early teens. Going on a quarter century now. I am not a rich person by any means but I have never found it to be a hardship to buy a $30 dollar a year trail park pass. Heck, I'm even fine getting a permit to climb a mountain if it means it's a calmer and less crowded experience. The main negative change I have seen to our public lands in recent decades in the explosive overuse of recreation sites by the social media/instagram crowd. Which just comes with the territory of our region's population increasing and new technology proliferating. I feel like I see many folks pointing at a lot of problems in this thread, but not a lot of solutions. When I look at the state of public lands in the PNW I tend to view it more as a collection of competing interests with lots of grey areas as opposed to a black and white "the public versus the evil and corrupt forest service" type narrative. Seems like if you already have the agency pegged as completely useless there is not a whole lot they are going to be able to do to to make you happy. I'm not sure. Maybe I just need to work on being more outraged by everything.

[Aimless]

Quite a few good points have been made against the proposed permit which is ostensibly the subject of this thread. The justification about mitigating negative impacts to an enormous parking lot were properly mocked as ridiculous. Many of the assertions the Forest Service advanced in support of this proposal appear to have no evidence to support them and they apparently have no plan to seek evidence that the permit would solve the supposed evils it is meant to address. I think all that makes a persuasive case for under-thinking and over-reaching by the FS. I have no trouble agreeing with these points.

The thread title, however, gratuitously uses a rhetoric of of victimization that many of us disagree with and find shrill and tiresome.

[Jesse]

Quite a few good points have been made against the proposed permit which is ostensibly the subject of this thread. The justification about mitigating negative impacts to an enormous parking lot were properly mocked as ridiculous. Many of the assertions the Forest Service advanced in support of this proposal appear to have no evidence to support them and they apparently have no plan to seek evidence that the permit would solve the supposed evils it is meant to address. I think all that makes a persuasive case for under-thinking and over-reaching by the FS. I have no trouble agreeing with these points.

The thread title, however, gratuitously uses a rhetoric of of victimization that many of us disagree with and find shrill and tiresome.

I wish there was a way to like posts here. But yes I generally agree with your take.