Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostFri Jun 20, 2014 4:35 pm 
"The National Forest Trails System Stewardship Act of 2014, introduced by Representatives Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Tim Walz (D-MN) would keep more trails across the nation open and accessible by expanding the use of volunteer and partner organizations and providing increased focus on a handful of priority areas around the country. "More than fifty diverse recreation and conservation groups requested the legislation after a study last year found the Forest Service trail system is being squeezed between the demands of growing public use and shrinking budgets. According to that report, the maintenance backlog for forest trails exceeds $314 million dollars and threatens to limit public access, harm natural resources, and increase future maintenance costs. "The Backcountry Horsemen of America, The Wilderness Society, the American Horse Council, along with motorized recreation groups, outfitters and guides, and others today applauded new legislation to improve access and public safety on national forests and better address a persistent trail maintenance backlog." More at The Wilderness Society "A June 2013, study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Forest Service trail maintenance backlog exceeds a half-billion dollars, and only one-quarter of the agency’s 158,000 miles of trails meets agency standards for maintenance. This maintenance backlog is causing access and safety issues for equestrians and all trail users on national forests. "The National Forest Service Trail Stewardship Act would direct the Forest Service to develop a strategy to more effectively utilize volunteers and partners to assist in maintaining national forest trails. It will also provide outfitters and guides the ability to perform trail maintenance activities in lieu of permit fees. Additionally, the bill would address a liability issue that has discouraged some national forests from utilizing volunteers and partner organizations to help perform trail maintenance..." More at American Horse Council. Full text of the bill. GAO Report on USFS trail maintenance backlog

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 7113 | TRs | Pics
Location: Arlington
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.
PostSat Jun 21, 2014 1:30 am 
Quote:
aim to increase trail maintenance by volun- 18 teers and partners by 100 percent by the date that 19 is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 20 Act.
WOW! eek.gif That's ambitious! To do this nationally i would think there is gonna have to be some creative thinking to attract new people. It's gonna take more than a change in how liability is administered.

"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 7113 | TRs | Pics
Location: Arlington
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.
PostThu Jul 03, 2014 11:42 am 
shakehead.gif No one? Really?

"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostFri Jul 04, 2014 10:08 am 
Hulksmash wrote:
Quote:
aim to increase trail maintenance by volunteers and partners by 100 percent [in] 5 years
WOW! eek.gif That's ambitious! To do this nationally i would think there is gonna have to be some creative thinking to attract new people.
It is ambitious. But I think that if other areas of the US could achieve the same level of volunteer participation as USFS has in the Cascades and Olympics, they'd exceed that goal. I'm not sure of that, as USFS doesn't publish volunteer hours by Forest or by state.

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostFri Sep 30, 2016 3:11 pm 
National Forest Trail Maintenance Legislation Passes House Groups hail legislation that will preserve America's trails Washington D.C. (September 26, 2016) Today the House of Representatives approved H.R. 845, the National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act by Representatives Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Tim Walz (D-MN). The legislation would keep more trails across the nation open and accessible by expanding the use of volunteer and partner organizations and providing increased focus on a handful of priority areas around the country. The legislation is co-sponsored by 87 members of the House of Representatives, as well as over 120 equestrian, sportsmen, conservation, motorized recreation, outfitters and guides, trails, and governmental organizations including the Western Governors' Association, National Association of Counties, and America Outdoors Association. The following statement is from Paul Spitler, Director of Wilderness Policy at The Wilderness Society: "We need to provide more opportunities for Americans to experience their great outdoors, and this bill will help do that. Keeping more trails open is a good thing for anyone who cares about our public lands." The following statement is from Ben Pendergrass, Senior Vice-President of Policy and Legislative Affairs at the American Horse Council: "National forest and trails are important to thousands of recreational riders and are a vital component of the $32 billion recreational riding industry. This bill will help make certain that equestrians and all trail users are able to have access to and enjoy our national forests. The AHC hopes the Senate will move quickly to also approve this bill." The following statement is from Donald Saner, chairman of the Back Country Horsemen of America: "We are overjoyed that Congress recognized the need to improve the condition of trails on our national forests. Public access to public lands provides many benefits, including enhanced tourism and a stronger local and national economy. This bill will encourage more volunteers and partners, like the Back Country Horsemen, to concentrate their energy toward reducing the trail maintenance backlog. We applaud Representatives Lummis and Walz and urge swift action in the Senate." The following statement is from David Brown, Executive Director of America Outdoors Association, a trade association of America's outfitters and guides: "With little more than 30 percent of Forest Service trails being maintained to standards, access to the backcountry is diminishing which will have a negative impact on rural economies. Passage of the National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act is an important step toward developing a comprehensive strategy to maintain access to our public lands and sustaining rural economies." Companion bill S.1110 awaits action in the Senate.

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ulysses
Member
Member


Joined: 20 May 2011
Posts: 52 | TRs | Pics
Ulysses
Member
PostFri Sep 30, 2016 6:41 pm 
Cool. But what we really need is to stop wasting money on fire suppression and mismanagement and to spend more on trails, on employing professional trail maintenance workers.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Sep 30, 2016 9:27 pm 
^ hmmm... pretty hard to do when over half of the NFS budget is currently being eaten up by wildfire fighting costs. best suggestion at present seems to be coming up with something along the line of making the firefighting budget a separate deal from the regular operating budget.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ulysses
Member
Member


Joined: 20 May 2011
Posts: 52 | TRs | Pics
Ulysses
Member
PostSat Oct 01, 2016 2:32 pm 
No. What needs to be done is to have better land management and fire management. Fire mismanagement is a huge contributing factor to an increase in fires and in turn an increase in funds towards the giant money pit that is fire suppression. https://www.c-span.org/video/?411648-1/federal-state-officials-testify-wildfire-prevention-forest-management

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSat Oct 01, 2016 2:39 pm 
^ forest mismanagement = fire mismanagement. the proverbial "Catch 22" here is a chicken-and-egg thing. example: Pre-commercial thinning was planned and scheduled for an area. By the time they finally got down to the final wire and got the go-ahead, they lacked the necessary funding to proceed with the pre-commercial thinning operation. Result: "Rim Fire" of 2013 was far worse than it might have been had that pre-commercial thinning operation been done. You can go back ten years here and see posts of mine where I previously brought this subject up. Over and over again. Because of the lack of forest "management" (read: pre-commercial and commercial thinning and regeneration harvest (clearcutting)), the potential for more disastrous wildfires is greater now than it ever was. It will continue to get worse before it gets better. I suppose after about 10-20 years of rampant and catastrophic wildfire events all over the Western US, we will arrive at a point where some sort of "equilibrium" is reached. * edit: video won't play at this end. ("C-Span is not responding due to a long-running script." *) (I don't want their "scripts" or their cookies, thanks.)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostSat Oct 01, 2016 6:45 pm 
Where is the extra money coming from? Re-allocating USDA/DOI funds, or will there be a Congressional increase? Will Washington state RCO get more money (I assume so...?) Will there be more demand for a larger share of volunteer matching for each X dollars granted? Looks like it might trickle down to wearing out volunteers. I guarantee you that Washington state will not be included in any of the 9 - 15 Priority Areas selected by the Secretary; if any in Region 6 are included they'd be in Oregon. Not sure what the point is other than to force the USDA-Forest Service to use more volunteers..? by 100%? Those that have volunteer access are already using them. Some areas simply don't have volunteer organizations or groups. Some may have a few, but would be worked to death. Not sure this act is doing anything at all. AM I missing something?

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
JVesquire
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 993 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pasco, WA
JVesquire
Member
PostSat Oct 01, 2016 9:57 pm 
The legislation basically tells the land managers to come up with a solution to use volunteers. I agree with Kim: what's this actually going to do? Another abdication of Congressional responsibility to fund one of our many infrastructure backlogs...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Muir fan
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Posts: 89 | TRs | Pics
Muir fan
Member
PostMon Oct 03, 2016 10:16 pm 
Hulksmash wrote:
WOW! eek.gif That's ambitious! To do this nationally i would think there is gonna have to be some creative thinking to attract new people.
As long as mountain bikers aren't allowed to ride trails, we'll be okay.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Oct 03, 2016 10:36 pm 
^ If they're multi-use trails and are not located in designated wilderness areas, why not? If USFS is trying to avail itself to volunteer muscle to perform maintenance, it follows logically they'd want to include as many user groups as possible, not exclude them.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2016 10:04 am 
My impression is that use of volunteers is limited by a lack of certified trip leaders in some cases and in other cases because more significant work (like rerouting a trail) requires significant Forest Services resources in getting approval before volunteer work can be done. These are part of my experience but I could see how in other parts of the country it might be very different. More generally the point is that volunteers may be free, but using them is not, at least as far as organized efforts go.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2372 | TRs | Pics
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
Off Leash Man
PostTue Oct 04, 2016 12:46 pm 
RodF wrote:
by expanding the use of volunteer and partner organizations and providing increased focus on a handful of priority areas around the country.
This is the proverbial foot-in-the-door. If folks would spend half as much effort convincing Congress to do their jobs and fund the maintenance and upkeep of the Public Commons then this would not be necessary. But...there is a deeper current here. Check out the American Recreation Coalition. You will find they have a hand in these things and are pushing their agenda which seeks to privatize all public land. Why? Because of the tremendous value to whoever controls Public lands. Money, all about money. These big shots see that nobody in the private sector is making big profits off charging folks to recreate on Public land and they want to change that. Volunteers doing maintenance means less demand for funding. Less funding means a bigger backlog of maintenance, even with volunteers. The next step is to auction off the concession to to manage plots of Public Land (which will include the right to charge entrance and user fees). The most attractive and popular (hence the most costly to upkeep) will be auctioned off first.

Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum