Ominous

Shawn Mitchell wrote: All right, that's a thoughtful tackling of the problem. But specifically regarding parks, option B doesn't have to involve padlocking them or even substituting private toll-collectors for public ones. Cutting spending could mean simply ending the public operation. Period. Leave the land open, but cease service and oversight. It would be a wild land ghost town, but not surrounded by barbed wire and keep out signs. This isn't ideal, but in a dire fiscal crisis, it's preferable to forbidding public access. No? EDIT: Maybe higher user fees and continued operation is a better option. I don't know. My point is, that if Government is really going to withdraw, it should just withdraw and not lock the place up. That smacks of punishing voters, a la closing Washington Monument during the 80's budget fights.

i worry about public land that is completely unmanaged, especially as said land is seeing more visitors each year. if we were to lock up the land we could potentially unlock it later when we can pay for management. if we let anyone in without any oversight the land might be, well, destroyed.

though i don't know what i'd do if my local parks were being closed--say mount lemmon. i don't like either idea very much. i'd be willing to pay $5 a day to visit a park if it meant keeping the park open.

Braxton Norwood wrote:So if the parks "close" are they really locked to prevent entry, or are they just no longer maintained to the same degree and people aren't kept out? I don't exactly understand what would happen to parkland in this scenario. When Glacier NP "closes" in the winter, I don't believe there are any access restrictions, however I could be wrong.

Good point, Braxton. I don't know the answer. It's quite possible that seasonal closures and budgetary closures are different. The former is purely practical, the latter practical and symbolic, and occurs in a political context.

Jon Ruland wrote: i worry about public land that is completely unmanaged, especially as said land is seeing more visitors each year. if we were to lock up the land we could potentially unlock it later when we can pay for management. if we let anyone in without any oversight the land might be, well, destroyed. though i don't know what i'd do if my local parks were being closed--say mount lemmon. i don't like either idea very much. i'd be willing to pay $5 a day to visit a park if it meant keeping the park open.

Also good points. A user fee that reflects the actual cost of providing the service is a better option than closing.

But if park operations are going to end, I'd bet the heavier usage you're concerned about drops way off too--without services, restroom facilities, running water, garbage removal, etc., most the casual public would go elsewhere, and more focused users--like climbers--would remain. Maybe?

I don't want any of this, nor advocate it for long term policy. I'm arguing that budgetary closures should be simple program-halts, not lock-ups.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: Also good points. A user fee that reflects the actual cost of providing the service is a better option than closing. But if park operations are going to end, I'd bet the heavier usage you're concerned about drops way off too--without services, restroom facilities, running water, garbage removal, etc., most the casual public would go elsewhere, and more focused users--like climbers--would remain. Maybe? I don't want any of this, nor advocate it for long term policy. I'm arguing that budgetary closures should be simple program-halts, not lock-ups.

hmm, that's a good point. without easy access there won't be (m)any touristas, and you'd be mostly left with people who deeply respect the land, like (most) climbers.

Jon Ruland wrote: hmm, that's a good point. without easy access there won't be (m)any touristas, and you'd be mostly left with people who deeply respect the land, like (most) climbers.

Or maybe not. One might expect an increase in illegal resource extraction, marijuana farming, destructive off-road use, etc.

PRRose wrote: Or maybe not. One might expect an increase in illegal resource extraction, marijuana farming, destructive off-road use, etc.

I suspect you are right there, PRRose. The areas will be trashed by lovers and abusers of the places alike...trash, neglected infrastructure (building, roads, trailheads all need periodic maintence); pot farming; dumping of trash; vandalism. All that comes from such potential closures.

Jon Ruland wrote: hmm, that's a good point. without easy access there won't be (m)any touristas, and you'd be mostly left with people who deeply respect the land, like (most) climbers.

That's nonsense. Go back and take a look at all the MP threads discussing the trashing of climbing areas by -- guess who -- climbers; e.g., the crash pad debacle at RMNP a year or two ago.

If public lands were simply opened up with no oversight or maintenance, they would quickly become trashed. Of course the extent of trashing would be directly related to the distance from the road, but trashed nonetheless.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: That's nonsense. Go back and take a look at all the MP threads discussing the trashing of climbing areas by -- guess who -- climbers; e.g., the crash pad debacle at RMNP a year or two ago. If public lands were simply opened up with no oversight or maintenance, they would quickly become trashed. Of course the extent of trashing would be directly related to the distance from the road, but trashed nonetheless.

So right. Perfect example in AZ: Access to Tonto Narrows was permanently closed due to trash everywhere and the private land owner tired of picking up trash. It is really interesting, as my wife and I'd go here to swim, splash around etc on a nice perennial stream. Slobs would leave bottles and cans and T.P. The average user couldn't be bothered to ever bring a trash bag to pick stuff up. My wife and I'd fill a 30 gallon trash bag each time we hiked out. Some folks I know claim to be oh so green and environmental, but in all the times they've gone in to this place, they never once picked up a fucking piece of trash. Most people will use a place and are too lazy to help clean it up. Maybe if they had, Tonto Narrows would be open. F**k you lazy slobs who are too lazy to proactively pick up trash. If you see trash and don't help clean it up, you are just part of the problem.

Gets me thinking... I often see garbage I don't want to stuff in my pack or pockets. (Not that they're much cleaner...but ick.) Maybe every time I go out, I should just pack a small garbage bag and carry away some litter.

Good word, Tradster!

Shawn Mitchell wrote: Good word, Tradster!

Second that.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: That's nonsense. Go back and take a look at all the MP threads discussing the trashing of climbing areas by -- guess who -- climbers; e.g., the crash pad debacle at RMNP a year or two ago. If public lands were simply opened up with no oversight or maintenance, they would quickly become trashed. Of course the extent of trashing would be directly related to the distance from the road, but trashed nonetheless.

this is not nonsense. simply go to any touristy area and take a look at the amount of trash close to the road. then go to a popular climbing crag and examine the trash there. i don't know how it is in your area, but on mount lemmon the popular tourist stops tend to be littered with trash while the climbing areas are spotless. most climbers i know will carry any trash out that they find at the crags--though we hardly ever find any trash at all.

i'm only speaking from what i know. perhaps climbers in your area don't respect the land very much? if this is the case then it's really disappointing.

PRRose wrote: Or maybe not. One might expect an increase in illegal resource extraction, marijuana farming, destructive off-road use, etc.

1. without any supervision you can expect any group of people, climbers included, to check their behavior less.

2. though it is against the law, i don't view marijuana farming as a bad thing.

3. destructive off-road use will certainly increase, there is no question.

i was not agreeing with shawn's post, i was simply acknowledging that his points have merit. i made some arguments against his idea earlier in the thread that seem to have been overlooked.

Jon Ruland wrote:i was not agreeing with shawn's post, i was simply acknowledging that his points have merit. i made some arguments against his idea earlier in the thread that seem to have been overlooked.

What a concept! Acknowledging some merit in points you disagree with. Maybe we should all do a bit more of that. :)

Sorry for the smiley, Radcliffe; it's the currency of the realm.

But to continue with Jon's good example of nuance...

It's not clear Richard's or PR's conclusion is different from mine, though they may well be. We talked about two things: whether a closure should also bar access, and what the consequence of unmonitored access might be.

As to the latter, we all agree, with different weights of emphasis, that cutting off services would reduce some user traffic, but some portion of remaining users might be more destructive. Jon thinks less so, Richard and PR appear to think more so.

But the original cleavage was whether to bar access. Apart from their forecast of high impact use, neither Richard nor PR have opined.

If in a fiscal crash, Colorado were going to cease administering Eldo, or the US did the same with RMNP, would you want the government also to bar user access to those lands? That's the issue I raised.

Jon, I think, says yes.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: But the original cleavage was whether to bar access. Apart from their forecast of high impact use, neither Richard nor PR have opined. If in a fiscal crash, Colorado were going to cease administering Eldo, or the US did the same with RMNP, would you want the government also to bar user access to those lands? That's the issue I raised.

It's an ugly hypothetical, but, unfortunately, with at least a small basis in reality. It seems there'd be two choices: 1) somehow turn 'em over to the private sector or 2) shut 'em down. I think it was Jon who basically said that to leave them open for a free-for-all would result in irreversible destruction, at least for all practical purposes. I think this is true. I also believe that this is a case where the private sector might do a better job than the government as long as there were certain restrictions put in place; basically don't turn the parks into Disneyland.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: It's an ugly hypothetical, but, unfortunately, with at least a small basis in reality. It seems there'd be two choices: 1) somehow turn 'em over to the private sector or 2) shut 'em down. I think it was Jon who basically said that to leave them open for a free-for-all would result in irreversible destruction, at least for all practical purposes. I think this is true. I also believe that this is a case where the private sector might do a better job than the government as long as there were certain restrictions put in place; basically don't turn the parks into Disneyland.

This is a real quandary. Although philosophically I'd prefer not to see an outright access ban in such a scenario, in reality most folks will not police themselves very well if there are no restrictions. The only thing saving most sweet spots in the BLM and NFS managed lands outside of designated wilderness or fee areas is the remoteness of the place and difficult roads to travel. In AZ, if you need a 4X4 to get back somewhere (non-ATV type place) it is usually clean and nice. If you can get to it easily and there is but a short hike, then expect trash here in AZ. Of course this isn't always true, it does seem to be the pattern. When my wife and I travel to Colorado, we always are amazed by how much cleaner the roads, and easily accessible places are compared to down AZ way. So when we find a nice swimming hole up north in the state, we are always relieved if the road is really crappy to some extent. I'm not saying that having a 4X4 makes one neater, just remarking that the harder it is to get some place, the less garbage one finds. I would rather entertain the idea of the private sector managing the lands with a governmental mandate regarding level of services provided, infrastructure limitations, etc. I believe that the private sector costs due to the profit incentive would give pause to many traditional users, such as ourselves. What would you pay under those conditions for what was a either free access or access with a minor cost previously?

We have threads about the dirt-bag lifestyle...they would be priced out. Even now I complain about campground fees of $12/night. Yet the NPS does provide a fantastic attraction for a tremendous value. I mean, what price can you put on climbing The Diamond, El Cap, or rafting the Grand Canyon or kayaking on Jenny lake? You really can't, but money always comes into play ultimately. You will pay this; no, I'll only pay that. So, rather than see a place destroyed by uncaring pukes due to no management of it, then, going against all my feelings, I'd probably restrict access completely.

Jon Ruland wrote:rather than closing them down, maybe we can make them pay for themselves? maybe charge a higher entry fee, for example. it sucks but it's better than being shut down.

There is no need for higher entry fees. They already do pay for themselves. From the link in the OP:

"The foundation estimates the state gets a $2.35 return for every dollar it spends on parks."

It's a dumbass move to close something that is returning on its investment. The closure threat sounds more like Schwarzenegger punishing those wily voters that shot down his budget ballot initiatives a week or two ago.

Eldo did not become a state park until 1978 and has a vast history prior to then. I was 18, and even back then there were plenty of people around the metro area. Yet it was not irrevocably damaged. Same thing with Castlewood. So why does everyone fear the "general public" now? I cannot believe people even considering total closure as an option, much less a preferred one over wide open. Why do you choose to submit like sheep? That is OUR land up there. You are actually willing to just stand there at the fence and gaze wistfully on the life you used to have?

I am old enough to remember far less regulation, yet we listen to the "experts" tell us we cannot be trusted, we have to keep you out of there, cannot climb there, no camping here anymore, always take take take and we are all devolving into spiritless pansies. Because we let our caretakers just do too much for us, now we have no zeal for protecting what is ours. I remember when liberalism meant "question authority" and "screw the man", now it just seems to stand for "submit to the state'. Just when did you people get so soft?

Edit- and Mike Dallin is the first to notice the "blackmail" effect the govenator is pulling. Which is yet again another reason why you just don't hand your balls over to the state!

A lot of good points above.
I see Mikes point, but I do believe that there are a lot more people using our public lands now than even just a few years ago. I personally have seen many unmanaged areas in Colorado trashed. It is a really sticky issue because I prefer "unimproved" or "primitive" camping to park style RV-athons, but if these places are going to get trashed than I would rather have small minimal service pay areas that are managed. Is there a happy medium? Keep the fees but eliminate costly mini-museums and running water?
Accusing Arnie for doing this to spite voters is ghastly but very possible. Scary stuff.

If you've ever worked for a local government agency, then you know how absolutely absurd and inefficient local government can be (well federal too, lets admit). The biggest change I noticed switching from government work (Open Space and Mountain Parks) to private landscaping is the amount of work one gets done in a day. On open space, Every little 'sign posted' goes through review, planning, oversight... and then finally some low paid peon goes and installs the sign (after several meetings have occurred). The end result is 40 man hours of waste to install one little sign. For every actual worker in the field, there were at least two sitting in an office somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I love open space, but working there was a joke compared with working for a real company (a company that would die if not competitive). The standard operating procedure within Open space (and I presume other gov. agencies) would bankrupt a normal (cash operating) company.

Gutting the inefficiencies from government operation would most likely help some of these closures (but I guess the dinosaurs did go extinct).

Side Note: Paying $20 to enter a National park DOES prohibit me from going there frequently (sheesh, that's more expensive than climbing at the gym!) Plus, I feel kind of ripped off having to pay to access public lands as a taxpayer, is 1/3 my salary not enough in taxes to get some land access in public areas?

Unfortunately, without some staffing, we'd end up with the land getting screwed over (imagine Boulder Canyon style grid bolting at Eldo!)