57 replies to this topic

[highz]

Advmoto, I could be wrong, but I believe much of the policy, rules and regulations that you mention, comes from the field. From the experience and science of folks like Smokecreek and others. I certainly don't see this as an 'us' versus 'them', where the 'them' are the folks who are doing their best to manage the lands for all of us.
 

My limited experience is as a volunteer with the USFS. I can't speak to other agencies. What I have seen is that the establishment of policy is not one way top-to-bottom. There are over 60 research stations in the different USFS regions. Results from these researchers inform the policymakers. Then the policies are decided on and handed down. Sometimes these policies are regional, not national. Sometimes they are local. Restrictions have become necessary to protect the land for the future, but every national forest supervisor understands that recreation is one of the greatest goods to protect. That I am sure of.

 

Our New Mexico State Land Commissioner has gone on record as saying the purpose of his office is to generate revenue for education from state owned land. It is not to keep state lands available for public use. In other words, state lands are not public lands unless he gives his blessing, and he can take it away, if mining or fossil fuel development will bring in more revenue. If I want to continue to have access to public lands, I'll go with federal protection every time. 

[craig333]

The local managers have some discretion on how policies are implemented. Enforce the rules vigorously or not at all it depends on the local manager and his/her employees. You never know if the person is a hard core environmentalist for laissez faire let em do whatever type. Generally you get somewhere inbetween. Only thing that bothers me is when you get used to one style of management and suddenly someone is reassigned and the new crew changes everything. But that happens everywhere, on regular Forest Service Lands, BLM lands etc, not just NP and NM lands.

 

One good thing about the lack of user input is it gives those of us who do speak that much more influence. I've attended a few meetings, written a few letters but its so much easier to just whine on the boards. Excuse me while I go write a letter!

[Advmoto18]

Ladies and Gentlemen...

 

Please do not misunderstand me.  I am not trying to portray a "them v us" or any other type of scenario. 

 

The vast majority of folks on WTW live out West.  You have an abundance of open spaces managed by a multitude of state and federal agencies.  More than 50% of the land mass out west is "public lands".  The east pales in comparison most notably due to land grants and private ownership dating back to when England ruled the colonies.  The Founders ensured individual land rights and property ownership were protected post-revolution and independence.

 

I concede policy implemented by DoI and NPS for managed public lands is likely formulated at the regional if not site level.

 

However, rules and regulations for DoI/NPS most certainly come from D.C..  Perhaps with opinion from local and regional levels, but promulgated by D.C. none-the-less.

 

Specifically, here are the foundations for NPS policies, rules and regulations.

 

And here is a complete list of NPS managed public lands and assets.

 

My only point in this entire thread is the trend of restricting use/users of public lands is on the increase.  Not the opposite. 

 

I'm all for "protecting" acreage deemed worthy of such classification.  But, to set aside tens of thousands of acres out west through reclassification enabling restrictions through "historic and scientific interests" which can barely be justified will eventually result in our western lands looking like our eastern public lands.  Restricted use, restricted travel and virtually no camping outside established/managed camp grounds.

 

I am so envious of all you folks who live out west and post here recalling your adventures. To drive and camp at a site and not have another soul in sight is something folks in the east can only dream about or visit out west.  To appreciate what you guys have out west, visit the east for an extended adventure.  Your idea of an eastern adventure will be drastically different from your western adventure, not simply due to vistas or lack thereof, but, due to restrictions.

 

Reclassification of public lands to NMs will in most, if not all, cases, lead to future use/user restrictions. 

 

Sadly, you do not realize what you had and how much you enjoyed IT, until you no longer have IT.

Edited by Advmoto18, 25 February 2016 - 03:29 PM.

[Wandering Sagebrush]

"My only point is to emphasize that embracing reclassification of public lands will in most cases, lead to future use/user restrictions."

From my perspective, those restrictions aren't always a bad thing. They may limit me in how and when I can access public lands, but if it protects the lands for future generations, that's ok with me.

If I remember correctly, you're retired now. Come on out and spend more time with us.

[Stalking Light]

There are movements in the west to transfer federal lands to state control which will lead to more posted signs, more mining, drilling and grazing on those lands and less access. I prefer federal control of public lands and I do embrace reclassification to NM status. This helps protect those areas from state land grabs. One main reason the things are so different in the east is that most of the east is private and there are a lot more people to misuse what public land there is.

[Advmoto18]

From my perspective, those restrictions aren't always a bad thing. They may limit me in how and when I can access public lands, but if it protects the lands for future generations, that's ok with me.

 

 

I agree to a certain extent Sage!

 

But is it "fair" to restrict responsible users because of a few who are not good stewards of public land?

 

Further, is it fair to exclude users who don't fit into OUR category (slide-in truck campers) simply because they travel/camp differently?  I'm thinking of dual sport motorcycle riders and horseback riders.  Generally, motorcycle and ATV riders are the first group of users to be restricted or prohibited in a up-classification of public land. 

 

One has to look no further than our most popular NPs for ultimate restrictions.  Are these restrictions needed?  Most likely so because of irresponsible users.  But then, where does that leave the responsible user?

 

I spent about 12 weeks on 2 separate trips out west last summer.  Made it to OX-West in May and the BMW MOA Rally in Billings in late July.

 

I should be in Baja right now, but, my flexible plan became too flexible and I'm still home.  I will be taking the motorcycle to the AZ this April for a month long camping/riding trip.

Edited by Advmoto18, 25 February 2016 - 03:31 PM.

[Advmoto18]

There are movements in the west to transfer federal lands to state control which will lead to more posted signs, more mining, drilling and grazing on those lands and less access. I prefer federal control of public lands and I do embrace reclassification to NM status. This helps protect those areas from state land grabs. One main reason the things are so different in the east is that most of the east is private and there are a lot more people to misuse what public land there is.

SL...

 

I think you are referring to Utah's plan.

 

Utah considered suing the federal government to have fed lands transferred to the state.   But constitutional lawyers/experts seem to have convinced the Utah delegation that this was a lost cause due to settled law and the Constitution itself.  No lawsuit has been filed to date.

 

Utah's effort is not going to happen.

 

 

I totally agree on eastern users/abusers!  

Edited by Advmoto18, 25 February 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[Stalking Light]

Ten of the eleven western states are studying the idea of federal land transfer.

[Advmoto18]

Indeed...much has happened in the last 10 months.

 

Many of the other states were watching for Utah to file a lawsuit and thus join the litigation.

 

yet, even a constitutional law expert at the Utah School of Law felt the state's legal argument for the lawsuit was flawed and doomed to fail..

 

This isn't anything new, recall the failed Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970/80s?

[Stalking Light]

They haven't given up. H.R. 3650