trail closures

[Gibby1]

I think you're right, people wouldn't mind paying if they were not already paying. People are tired of hearing the gov say "we need more money but we're going to give you less". Privately run public land, maybe. Part of the reason public land is set aside is so that everyone could use it, not just those with money, this isn't England. But maybe volunteer hrs could be used to offset the cost for those with out enough money. There are private companies who run public recreation areas/campgrounds and they do it cheaper than the gov does (imagine that). Then you run up against the fact that the FS would need to lay people off and reduce their budget,:haha: I will disagree with your last sentance, we are entitled to use public land, it's ours, the gov is just supposted to manage it for the publics use.

Going back to the very root of the problem though, should the government be providing public land for us to use to recreate? That's the core issue that I'm struggling with. It's nice when we have extra money, it's a privelege, not a right. I don't think they should?
Does that mean that only those that can afford to pay for it, get to go wheeling? Yes. Just like only those that can afford to pay for it get to go skiing for example. Crystal Mountain (as an example) is on public land, managed by a private company and you don't get to use it for free. If you can't afford to pay the fees to ski, you don't get to go. Why is that a bad model? Should the government supplement the ski industry too so that everyone get's to ski?
Would this piss people off that can't afford to wheel any longer? Yes. But I don't feel it's our governments responsibility to pay out huge sums of money for a few people to recreate. I'm talking about ALL users, not just the 4x4 users. Perhaps the government should put up amusement parks on public land and run it at a huge fiscal loss so that those who can't afford to go to Disneyland or Silverwood can go play, on the government's dollar...
Think about how this is pretty much the same thing.

 

[Bill]

the whole government is a fiscal loss, this is a bad modle.
a start could be cleaning out the waist in the foresty dept....what they spend for what they do is insane

 

[Gibby1]

the whole government is a fiscal loss, this is a bad modle.
a start could be cleaning out the waist in the foresty dept....what they spend for what they do is insane

Hence the idea that private industry could manage this better than government and SHOULD manage recreation.

You are 100% correct that there is an incredible waste of money and inefficiencies at all levels of government.

Like our tax system we need to throw it out and start over. I don't think the USFS for example, can be reformed, it needs to be replaced.

I wonder how much money the goverment would bring in, if they sold all public forest land?

 

[Bill]

Hence the idea that private industry could manage this better than government and SHOULD manage recreation.

You are 100% correct that there is an incredible waste of money and inefficiencies at all levels of government.

Like out tax system we need to throw it out and start over. I don't think the USFS for example, can be reformed, it needs to be replaced.

I wonder how much money the goverment would bring in, if they sold all public forest land?

I agree...

 

[whatthe?]

Going back to the very root of the problem though, should the government be providing public land for us to use to recreate? That's the core issue that I'm struggling with. It's nice when we have extra money, it's a privelege, not a right. I don't think they should?
Does that mean that only those that can afford to pay for it, get to go wheeling? Yes. Just like only those that can afford to pay for it get to go skiing for example. Crystal Mountain (as an example) is on public land, managed by a private company and you don't get to use it for free. If you can't afford to pay the fees to ski, you don't get to go. Why is that a bad model? Should the government supplement the ski industry too so that everyone get's to ski?
Would this piss people off that can't afford to wheel any longer? Yes. But I don't feel it's our governments responsibility to pay out huge sums of money for a few people to recreate. I'm talking about ALL users, not just the 4x4 users. Perhaps the government should put up amusement parks on public land and run it at a huge fiscal loss so that those who can't afford to go to Disneyland or Silverwood can go play, on the government's dollar...
Think about how this is pretty much the same thing.

The publics land that to gov is supposed to manage should be accessable for all to use. Your Crystal Mtn example is flawed, if I want to hike to the top and ski down I'm free to do so, what your buying is a lift ticket, not access to the land. Same with wheeling/camping/hiking. I shouldn't have to buy access from the gov. I pay to take something-elk, fish, wood, not just to be there. It would be a sad day if all our land was privatized so only the rich could afford access. Public land benefits a majority of americans, and it's worth the money to keep it open. Way too much is spent and wasted by gov. It should be streamlined and maybe management turned over to private companies but still remain in the governments trust.

 

[Gibby1]

The publics land that to gov is supposed to manage should be accessable for all to use. Your Crystal Mtn example is flawed, if I want to hike to the top and ski down I'm free to do so, what your buying is a lift ticket, not access to the land.

Are you sure about that? I'm not saying that your wrong.

I do know that Crystal controls access to certain areas for safety and even sledding. You're not allowed to sled on the property that they manage.

I'm not sure sure if you're accurate with that one.

Reality is that public land is not accessible for all to use, in fact, neither is private land as those of us with significant land have learned (I own over 100 acres that I am not free to do whatever I want with.).

I am believing more and more that the government should not OWN public land but since we do, we should not manage it. Regulate it, maybe, manage it, no.

 

[Gibby1]

I pay to take something-elk, fish, wood, not just to be there. It would be a sad day if all our land was privatized so only the rich could afford access. Public land benefits a majority of americans, and it's worth the money to keep it open. Way too much is spent and wasted by gov. It should be streamlined and maybe management turned over to private companies but still remain in the governments trust.

You pay to hunt and fish, regardless of whether or or not you get something. You pay to launch boats. You pay just to access national parks. It has nothing to do with taking something. You perhaps disagree with paying for all those things as well, I can see how that would be consistent with your stance.

Our public lands only benefit a minimum of people. The numbers of people that use public land is VERY VERY tiny.

Look at Evan's Creek, does anyone have the actual budget spent by the USFS to keep that park open for the last 5 years? I would be curious to know.

 

[KarlVP]

I vote for none of the above.

It's just dirt.

 

[whatthe?]

You pay to hunt and fish, regardless of whether or or not you get something. You pay to launch boats. You pay just to access national parks. It has nothing to do with taking something. You perhaps disagree with paying for all those things as well, I can see how that would be consistent with your stance.

Our public lands only benefit a minimum of people. The numbers of people that use public land is VERY VERY tiny.

Look at Evan's Creek, does anyone have the actual budget spent by the USFS to keep that park open for the last 5 years? I would be curious to know.

Yes I do disagree with paying for those things. Public land should be accessable to all, not just those with money. You pay to hunt and fish because you have the potential to take something, an individual is taking a resource that belongs to everybody. I know you can use ski areas on public land with out buying a lift ticket if you're willing to hike. As for being "out of bounds" on those areas it only applies if you buy their lift ticket. If I want to hike over a mountain into one of those area's and snow camp, I'm free to do so. I guess we would disagree over fees. I don't disagree with paying for a service, ie boat launch, campgrounds but I see trails as different. I'd like them not to maintain trails, let them get more difficult. Take the money saved on trail maintenance and put towards enforcement. Let the clubs and individuals clear trails. Make people more resonsible for the land they use.

 

[crash2]

Yes I do disagree with paying for those things. Public land should be accessable to all, not just those with money.

Then work to change it and a way to fund it...

 

[whatthe?]

Well right now it is accessable. I believe the money is there if spent correctly. I wouldn't give them any more money until they prove they can be responsible with what they have. They're spending money on the wrong stuff. I realize this is my opinion and open for debate.

 

[crash2]

Well right now it is accessable. I believe the money is there if spent correctly. I wouldn't give them any more money until they prove they can be responsible with what they have. They're spending money on the wrong stuff. I realize this is my opinion and open for debate.

Your welcome to your opinion--I love opinions but take that and go with it and make it change....

 

[whatthe?]

I do, I lobby my districts politicians, Jenea' and Hinkle. I don't bother with Murry or cantwell.

 

[crash2]

I do, I lobby my districts politicians, Jenea' and Hinkle. I don't bother with Murry or cantwell.

Do work ---do work :awesomework::awesomework::awesomework:

 

[white-rhyno]

If i had to vote. Pay to play.

But im not voting cause im not wheeling this year.:flipoff:

 

[boardbysled]

I refuse to vote because the choices are unacceptable.

Its like choosing between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.:looser:

 

[ain'tstuckjustresting]

i refuse to vote because the choices are unacceptable.

Its like choosing between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.:looser:

This! Times eleventybillion...........................:eeek:

 

[whatthe?]

I refuse to vote because the choices are unacceptable.

Its like choosing between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.:looser:

When dealing with government that's usually your choices.

 

[Jaydog]

I don't see what everyones issue is, the country is going to collapse financially within the next decade, and we will be able to wheel anywhere we want to. :awesomework:

 

[Corey Y]

I don't see what everyones issue is, the country is going to collapse financially within the next decade, and we will be able to wheel anywhere we want to. :awesomework:

Impossible, China and India will bail the U.S. out.