Forest Service proposes a “cultural shift” for more access to public lands

The Forest Service last year began exploring how it could draw more newcomers to public lands. The agency found it would need a cultural shift, transitioning toward using Forest Service staff and upgraded technology to enhance the visitor experience and enable more use.

“We have a strange tendency of gearing toward ‘no’ than gearing toward ‘yes,'” said Tinnelle Bustam, the Forest Service’s assistant director of recreation. “We want to pivot from ‘no’ and pivot toward ‘yes.'”

Click to expand...

Full story here

Thoughts?

To me that sounds like a great idea, on paper. I guess only time will tell and it will depend on execution.
I personally believe that the forest service has rightfully gained a reputation as a "lock the public out" agency which is fanning the Land grabbing flames. Partially due to funding and partially due to policy both will need changed in order to change public perception. I'm sure it's a constant balancing act but I feel that currently we have tipped a little too far one way when it comes to public use. If an activity is not detrimental to the land or affecting the experience of other users I see no reason why it should not be permitted. While I'm sure it's not that simple in my mind that would be ideal.
Every person who is able to use our public lands and enjoy the experience will feel they have something at stake when it comes to public lands. No?

Sounds like the hunter will suffer in the end. I've lost all trust with the folks who manage Colorado.
For example I have a spot that I fish, hunt, and camp at. The DOW tried to shut it down quietly for they say the purpose of creating an undisturbed elk calving area. The place saw little use and the one road back there was a 4x4 rough washed out path. That in itself limited use. We'll some how they failed at closing the area and they followed by widening / grading the road and adding road base. Now the area is 100 times more crowded with Subarus and dogs off lease. I have a hard time not creating a conspiracy theory here. So revamping to get new users will probably shut down hunting one way or another. Sorry to be a nay sayer but...

The agency’s top recreation officials Wednesday gathered at the REI flagship store in Denver with dozens of outfitters, guides and outdoor-industry leaders to discuss the transformation of the 111-year-old agency.

Click to expand...

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Arcteryx likes?

TheSurveyor said:

Sounds like the hunter will suffer in the end. I've lost all trust with the folks who manage Colorado.
For example I have a spot that I fish, hunt, and camp at. The DOW tried to shut it down quietly for they say the purpose of creating an undisturbed elk calving area. The place saw little use and the one road back there was a 4x4 rough washed out path. That in itself limited use. We'll some how they failed at closing the area and they followed by widening / grading the road and adding road base. Now the area is 100 times more crowded with Subarus and dogs off lease. I have a hard time not creating a conspiracy theory here. So revamping to get new users will probably shut down hunting one way or another. Sorry to be a nay sayer but...

Click to expand...

do you mean they tried to close the area or close, or tried to seasonally close it to motorized use to protect calving grounds. big difference. everyone these days tend to try to lie and say areas are closed when in fact they are not.

Most importantly, district rangers and permit managers will be given more leeway to waive more intensive reviews and fast-track approvals for commercial or nonprofit activities that don’t have any greater impact that normal public use.

Click to expand...

Without congressional re-working of NEPA I don't see this working that well in practice, because it kind of already happens.
1)Ranger approves permitted action through Categorical-Exclusion or something similar that they intend to initiate
2)Group X disagrees, saying there is indeed potential impact of that action and claims an EIS or at least EA should have been completed
3)Permitted action tied up in court, money wasted, decision drawn out, maybe a settlement

I think if this is the intended direction of the USFS they will be pretty constrained to working within current policy guidelines unless/until NEPA is modified. Even the gray areas of permitting have a lot of court precedent on the side of requiring EA's at a minimum. I do think it is possible for the agencies to speed up the EA writing process, just because most Districts are in the relatively early stages of figuring out what the courts require. Many that I've read would hold up in court better if they were simplified and much shorter. More words doesn't mean better.

That said, I agree that there is probably a lot of good that can be done right now in terms of PR and culture shift to improve perception of public land management.

RockyDog said:

do you mean they tried to close the area or close, or tried to seasonally close it to motorized use to protect calving grounds. big difference. everyone these days tend to try to lie and say areas are closed when in fact they are not.

Click to expand...

They tried to CLOSE the area for hunting and camping. They already close the road at labor day but you can still hike in and hunt until Dec 31 then they close down hunting and camping till June.
I just see more users equating to crowded areas and now it's "unsafe" to shoot in the area.
That's my suspicion with the area I'm referring to. They couldn't get it shut down so they blow it up with hwy traffic. Then stand back and say see we need to shut it down.