More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
Aimless
Posts: 1496
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by Aimless » January 8th, 2020, 9:46 am

Thanks for the link to the WTA story. I read it with care, but I found it very unclear on the details. I know Senator Wyden has been looking for Congressional support to move the fire-fighting budget out of the mainline USFS budget by creating a separate multi-billion dollar fund just to cover wildfire costs, but I couldn't tell from the article what this rider on the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill actually does differently from in the past or how much money was appropriated, or really much of anything at all about it. :?

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6361
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by kepPNW » January 8th, 2020, 10:11 am

TKO wrote:Trailkeepers of Oregon is a non-profit organization whose mission is to protect and enhance the Oregon hiking experience through advocacy, stewardship, outreach and education.
:roll: :(

mountainkat wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 7:33 pm
(As an aside, I really appreciate the trail/hiker advocacy work that WTA does. I really wish we had such an organization in Oregon.)
Indeed. Props to WTA!

Just a damn shame that TKO, an organization that puts advocacy first in their mission statement, has a director that publicly states that's not something he's interested in and that it won't be a focus of their efforts.

Has anyone heard even a single peep from TKO over the Central Oregon debacle? Silence speaks volumes.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

User avatar
mountainkat
Posts: 61
Joined: March 4th, 2015, 6:12 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by mountainkat » January 8th, 2020, 12:51 pm

kepPNW wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 10:11 am

Just a damn shame that TKO, an organization that puts advocacy first in their mission statement, has a director that publicly states that's not something he's interested in and that it won't be a focus of their efforts.

Has anyone heard even a single peep from TKO over the Central Oregon debacle? Silence speaks volumes.
Well, I guess I left that door open...

Although this just continues the thread drift, I'd like to clarify, I wasn't making a swipe at TKO. I volunteer for them and support their trail work efforts. I had just intended to lament the void that is obviously present in Oregon. Much can be said about who should be doing it (heck, with so much "hiker community building" in Facebook groups, like, for example, Karl's "PortlandHikers," one could argue that group should be leveraged for trail advocacy, as well. But, silence speaks volumes, indeed). The fact remains that a group focused on hiker advocacy in Oregon would be welcomed.

My apologies for causing the thread drift.

User avatar
mountainkat
Posts: 61
Joined: March 4th, 2015, 6:12 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by mountainkat » January 8th, 2020, 1:08 pm

Aimless wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 9:46 am
Thanks for the link to the WTA story. I read it with care, but I found it very unclear on the details. I know Senator Wyden has been looking for Congressional support to move the fire-fighting budget out of the mainline USFS budget by creating a separate multi-billion dollar fund just to cover wildfire costs, but I couldn't tell from the article what this rider on the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill actually does differently from in the past or how much money was appropriated, or really much of anything at all about it. :?
Yeah, sorry, I just cited to that article for its brevity and the fact that a hiker organization sees it as something that will help alleviate the recreation funding problems. I've done a Google search for more details and it seems there's agreement from many organizations that the new bill will stop the budget borrowing that supposedly resulted in the cuts to recreation and such. Of course, we have to see how it plays out.

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6361
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by kepPNW » January 8th, 2020, 3:31 pm

mountainkat wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 12:51 pm
kepPNW wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 10:11 am
Just a damn shame that TKO, an organization that puts advocacy first in their mission statement, has a director that publicly states that's not something he's interested in and that it won't be a focus of their efforts.

Has anyone heard even a single peep from TKO over the Central Oregon debacle? Silence speaks volumes.
Well, I guess I left that door open...
Yeah, lacking a Like or Love button here, only way to show full agreement with someone is to come right out and say so! :D

mountainkat wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 12:51 pm
Although this just continues the thread drift, I'd like to clarify, I wasn't making a swipe at TKO. I volunteer for them and support their trail work efforts. I had just intended to lament the void that is obviously present in Oregon.
The fact that TKO didn't even come to mind, given your association with them, as an advocate for Oregon hikers... :shock: Here you are, in the birthplace of our host, saying no one is doing what their mission statement calls for... I'm not exactly sure what you had meant to say, but I certainly agree with what you did say -- the void is stunning.

mountainkat wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 12:51 pm
Facebook groups, ... one could argue ... should be leveraged for trail advocacy, as well.
Facebook groups playing an advocacy role? I know how much Facebook means to some, but really? :lol:

mountainkat wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 12:51 pm
The fact remains that a group focused on hiker advocacy in Oregon would be welcomed.
Indeed! This is exactly what I was agreeing with!

TKO wrote:Trailkeepers of Oregon is a non-profit organization whose mission is to protect and enhance the Oregon hiking experience through advocacy, stewardship, outreach and education.
Paging Steve Kruger... :(
Last edited by kepPNW on January 8th, 2020, 6:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12826
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by retired jerry » January 8th, 2020, 3:42 pm

.....

User avatar
drm
Posts: 5150
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by drm » 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.

User avatar
drm
Posts: 5150
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by drm » January 8th, 2020, 7:17 pm

BTW, the issue of fire expense in the forest was not exactly fixed by the law that recently passed. It certainly improves things, but as somebody else said, it ain't putting things back the way there were. As I heard it described by the District Ranger, it really just keeps things from getting worse than they are now wrt fire expenses, and things are already pretty bad.

To be honest, a fix for fire fighting expense is probably to just let it burn. But letting fires burn is less popular than, um, TP in the middle of your camp. Somebody else's TP.

After a string of really bad fire years, we've now had a couple of moderate ones in the PNW. But we know that is very unlikely to last long.

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3036
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by adamschneider » January 8th, 2020, 8:36 pm

kepPNW wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 3:31 pm
Facebook groups playing an advocacy role? I know how much Facebook means to some, but really? :lol:
Yeah, you're right Karl, Facebook is totally impotent. It's not like it's used to help influence national elections or anything... :roll:

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12826
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by retired jerry » January 9th, 2020, 6:48 am

"But letting fires burn is less popular than, um, TP in the middle of your camp. Somebody else's TP."

I can see how we got into this mess of not letting fires burn. There is an overwhelming urge to put out fires because the result is so terrible.

Another thing is to make defensible barriers around any developments. That costs money.

And even less popular than TP is the NWFP :)

Post Reply