More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
Posts: 1264
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by Water » January 9th, 2020, 3:06 pm

drm wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 7:12 pm
Water wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 1:08 pm
Please explain to me how if the goal is to match this, creating new facilities and service maintenance costs helps arrive at matching available resources? Are they trying to suggest revenues gained after building bathrooms and installing picnic tables, and having trash service at new trailheads that currently do not have these costs associated will both pay for all activities at those trailheads AND more, in order to address other expenses?
I generally agree, but that is coming from people who don't use these facilities much if at all. The blowback they get for suggesting closing almost anything is enormous. There are always a chunk of people who have been using those facilities since their daddy took them there in 1965 and it's the absolute only place they want to go. I exaggerate a bit, but you get the point. There is one CG they are proposing closing on the NE side of Indian Heaven.
Thanks for trying to work/discuss this with me, DRM. As obviously I am way more critical of the FS (unnecessarily so, from your view). But What is coming from the people that use those facilities. I guess what I don't understand is why when you look at a map from 20 or 40 years ago, you see more camp grounds than you do today? As usage has gone up, developed use has gone down it seems. I have heard about those folks fixated on one spot, but I would ask really, so why are they removing them? people don't use them enough? And we repeatedly hear usage is up in our national forests. What's the disconnect here? Is there something specific why people don't want to use the campground? Ok in that case I understand maybe it just doesn't work (soggy spots, road noise, spots too close, etc).

But if we broadly say there is less to put into facilities because any confluence of logging revenues, congressional appropriation, and FS internal budgeting changes which negatively affects supporting these facilities, then why oh why would their future plans INCLUDE building new facilities?? They're going to spend $155k on developing 5 trailheads alone that will cost how much to service each year?

It's totally unacceptable and borderline disingenuous to tell the public they can't tell us costs for things or even averages of different slices, but they know exactly how much money they cost to build and in snowgrass's case, they arrive at an exact number of revenue it will generate $6500. (it doesn't say but I'm going to assume annually). The money coming in is to a T and the money going out is just a big mess? That's not a good look either. If they can't quantify it and share it, why would the public trust their numbers that they're going to reduce the overall upkeep costs, even while building new facilities?

Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
Posts: 5149
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by drm » January 19th, 2020, 8:44 am

Are they building many new facilities? I thought they were mostly replacing degraded facilities in those cases.

Nonetheless, there is plenty of craziness and irrationality going on. FS personnel have only so much leeway within the broader themes set far away.

I also think there has been a large increase in dispersed car camping and related activities. This presents a problem because the FS is in no position to manage dispersed road activities, even to designate dispersed car camping sites, which would then require some level of management - another new burden. But a lot of decisions affect those activities.

As to better/more facilities in the past, there were fewer fires to fight and more timber money coming in. The dollars-to-visitors ratio was much higher then.

Post Reply