[Dave Workman]

This is from the Methow Valley News: December 20, 2006 http://www.methowvalleynews.com/headlines.htm Forest Service to take stock of facilities Agency faces "tough decisions" to close some sites, add fees to others By Patrick Hannigan Beginning in April 2007, the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests will rank all of its 300-plus developed recreation sites spread out across the four-million acre forest. "Maybe the bottom 10 percent of sites need to be closed," said Jim Archambeault, recreation planner for the forest. The process, officially known as Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RSFMP), was initiated by an administrative rule change within the Forest Service in 2002. The directive required that every one of the roughly 15,000 campgrounds, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and trailheads with bathrooms on the 193 million acres under the agency’s authority be evaluated. Those sites that fail to meet certain criteria will either be upgraded to fee sites, be turned over to private concessionaires for management or be closed....." If you click on the URL, go to the 5th story down and read the whole thing.

[Backpacker Joe]

"Master planning" dont ya know..... Sure buddy.

[Slugman]

What a shame. I disagree with the whole concept that little-used places are of little value. To me, the very lack of use makes them the most valuable, as I prefer solitude as much as I can get it. Nice places that are crowded are common, but nice places that are free from crowds are rare and special IMO. So, given the various choices, I think making them pay sites but leaving them open is the best of the bad choices that are being presented. Keeping them open and free is my first choice, but that doesn't appear to on the table.

[Rich Baldwin]

If you don't like what the OWNF is doing, it is important to look to the root causes. First, Congress does not fund the level of recreation that the public expects from the National Forests. Fees filled in some of the gap, but it isn't practical to collect them at remote sites. Second, the administration enacted a rule that requires the Forest Service to go through this process. If you don't like it, try writing to Congress about the level of funding, or to the Department of Agriculture about the rule. The OWNF is stuck in between.

[Slugman]

The article states that it was an administrative rule change within the FS. Maybe the article is wrong, but you have presented no evidence of this. The article also states that there is no plan for public comment at this time. It also states that in other forests that have completed their process, closings have occurred with little or no public comments allowed. FS personnel themselves are calling this process "absurd". While I see people disagreeing with this process, I don't see anybody in this thread blaming the O/WNF specifically. PS: Rich, I agree with you in that it is primarily a budget issue, which the O/WNF has no control over.

[Rich Baldwin]

Not sure what you are taking issue with, exactly, Slugman. Forest Service rules are Department of Agriculture rules because the Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture. Was that it?

[touron]

There will always be a new bottom 10%. Eventually there may be not much left to sell off. Sounds like the FS may be getting out of the business of...being the FS. Perhaps the Department of Agriculture should change its name to the Department of Auctioneering.

[Ski]

Outrageous. Thanks again, Dave, for the heads up. Snail-mail and e-mail campaign to lands management and elected officials will begin on January 21, 2007.

[Snowbrushy]

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/the_forest_service_is_pulled_in_every_which_way/C38/L38/ FS spending too much on fire fighting on private lands? News from the red states.