SFR USFS Budget Cuts

Sorta fishing-related
Long_Rod_Silvers

Long_Rod_Silvers

Elder Millennial
Forum Supporter
Not wanting to start anything political - just a heads up to do some research before heading out on your favorite trail and/or spending time on USFS land. Sounds like some budget cuts may impact campsites and trail conditions. Probably too early to tell, but something to keep an eye on if you like to spend time on USFS land.

www.themeateater.com

Forest Service Budget Cuts Could Impact Hunters

On a Forest Service all-employee phone call in mid-September, it was clear that bad news was imminent as agency chief Randy Moore rambled on about recent budget challenges and the employee-first mentality of the Forest Service. Then he dropped the bombshell: the agency wouldn’t be bringing on any...
www.themeateater.com www.themeateater.com

www.nbcnews.com

U.S. Forest Service pauses seasonal employee hiring amid budget shortfall

The decision won't affect fire crews or the ability to respond to wildfires, officials say.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
Billy said:
I love how they start on the bottom. Seasonal employees. The ones that are actually in the field doing stuff.

I'm so sick of paying into systems that essentially turn around and screws us.
Click to expand...
Upper management makes the decisions. Upper management either never goes or is the very last to go.
 
Salmo_g said:
If seasonal trail clearing doesn't happen, it's only a matter of time that trails become unusable in a lot of cases. This is not good.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how the trails belong to the people, if the government cannot or will not do the needed work there should be no restrictions whatsoever for we the people to go do it.
Not that many people would but those who would should be allowed without any kind of permission. Same goes for boat ramps and the like.
 
dirty dog said:
To my understanding, USFS land is public land, open to the public.
So why can't the public take care of their own land?
I have an idea why, and I pick up litter on public land all the time.
But locking off public land to the public is not the answer.
Click to expand...
I suspect it is a liability issue; we unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society, trip, fall break an ankle on can improperly maintained trail, sue the government, wash rinse repeat.

I am not one who thinks things like locking gates is done out of malice.
 
Canuck from Kansas said:
I suspect it is a liability issue; we unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society, trip, fall break an ankle on can improperly maintained trail, sue the government, wash rinse repeat.

I am not one who thinks things like locking gates is done out of malice.
Click to expand...
There's certainly some of that at play, but at least here in Washington (aparently the litter/dumping capital of the world), the big reason we keep losing (motorized) access to public lands is dumping and land abuse. When people who refuse to spend $20 at the landfill dump their old appliances, tires, and dirty diapers at the nearest pullout on the nearest open logging road, the logging company leasing the land gets stuck with the cleanup cost. Next thing you know, gates are installed and locked. Go figure.

Of course, it doesn't help that the lessees have discovered it can be profitable to sell people who want to use the land legitimately keys to gates, but when we lose public access to something, at the end of the day, it's almost always because, yet again, the few have ruined it for the many.
 
Canuck from Kansas said:
I suspect it is a liability issue; we unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society, trip, fall break an ankle on can improperly maintained trail, sue the government, wash rinse repeat.

I am not one who thinks things like locking gates is done out of malice.
Click to expand...
Well then they better get out there and take care of things.. this is OUR LAND NOT THEIRS. The an agency that restricts access to our land because they cannot ostensibly cannot afford to maintain it deserves to be sued by people doing their jobs for them. Furthermore they should be prohibited from contesting such a lawsuit.
All budget cuts are a matter of sorting priorities i say cut staff in Washington DC In order to keep local staff. Nothing is less important than politicians keeping their jobs.
 
In the state of Washington law and code enforcement routinely refuse to prosecute even severe illicit garbage dumping on the basis of identification found in the refuse...claiming that it will not hold up in court because lack of evidence 'chain of custody' issues.

For some reason there are several states that have no qualms about aggressively prosecuting such cases.

My previous employer unwillingly acquired a Spokane River access point that the state parks department desperately wanted to another entity to handle because of the illicit dumping problem...which very often included entire flatbed trucks of trash with plenty of consistent origin documentation. Police and code enforcement were completely uninterested in the problem.

Couldn't lock the gate because it was a potential river rescue issue...so the public foots the bill for continual cleanup.
 
dirty dog said:
To my understanding, USFS land is public land, open to the public.
So why can't the public take care of their own land?
I have an idea why, and I pick up litter on public land all the time.
But locking off public land to the public is not the answer.
Click to expand...
You guys are funny.
Locking off public lands to the public is the goal.
Makes it much easier to justify selling it off to the highest bidder.
Always, always follow the money.
 
Rob Allen said:
Seeing as how the trails belong to the people, if the government cannot or will not do the needed work there should be no restrictions whatsoever for we the people to go do it.
Not that many people would but those who would should be allowed without any kind of permission. Same goes for boat ramps and the like.
Click to expand...
Liability issues make this prohibitive.
But I do think the same way as you.
 
FinLuver said:
Liability issues make this prohibitive.
But I do think the same way as you.
Click to expand...

It's their job to keep the trails.... do your job.. it's that simple..the idea that they feel they have ANY sort of right to limit public access is just silly...

Next summer I am using the Mott Trail above the bridge no matter the status of the trail. If a burnt snag falls on me that's my fault and my perogative to face that risk it's absolutely none of the forest service's business.
 
Rob Allen said:
..the idea that they feel they have ANY sort of right to limit public access is just silly...
Click to expand...

The Constitution's Property Clause gives Congress the power to dispose of and make rules regarding federal property, including public lands. Supreme Court historically has described Congress’s authority under the Property Clause as “plenary” and “without limitations.”

To summarize: Congress is well within its Constitutional rights to both delegate the rule making process on access to public lands, and even prohibit it outright, should they deem to do so.

As a Constitutional Scholar (🤣) one would think you'd know this...
😁
 
Mossback said:
The Constitution's Property Clause gives Congress the power to dispose of and make rules regarding federal property, including public lands. Supreme Court historically has described Congress’s authority under the Property Clause as “plenary” and “without limitations.”

To summarize: Congress is well within its Constitutional rights to both delegate the rule making process on access to public lands, and even prohibit it outright, should they deem to do so.

As a Constitutional Scholar (🤣) one would think you'd know this...
😁
Click to expand...
Somebody has to play Devil's Advocate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top