[Slugman]

post deleted by moderator

[MtnGoat]

Of the hundreds of registered users here, how is it you cannot manage to restrain yourself from posting politics, even when the *moderator* asks you to stop? pm me with the examples of how I have dishonestly attacked you, i'd love to see it. now the topic at hand.... since budgets are by definition limited, ranking campgrounds and stuff for some kind of comparison makes perfect sense to me. I'm surprised this wasn't done years ago just to make sure money was well spent even when (if) there was more of it.

[Tom]

you did say learning disability. stay on topic or i will lock this thread.

[MtnGoat]

anyway, as I was saying..... the limited resource any entity faces make this ranking system a necessity to begin with, even if it's not for closures but deciding which facilities to spend the most on. Rabid fears aside, the campgrounds closed will be neither clearcut nor sold for resorts, and at some point in the future it's always possible to reopen 5 picnic benches and 1 pit toilet as you see at many small campgrounds. From what I read there, it appears the only actual sales won't be forest, but commercial properties of some kind that are no longer needed.

[Slugman]

OK, on topic and playing nice. There are no rabid fears. I already said I didn't mind the excess buildings being sold. The part of the link that I objected to was the overall cut in FS maintenance funds.

[Allison]

FS funds have been deteriorating since the FS stopped genrating revnue through timber sales. It's just faster now under this particular anti-environment administration. Doesn't hurt that Americans don't give a hang about the enviroment right now either. FS budget is doled out by Congress, so bug your delegation!