Caribou Gear Tarp

Largest U.S. forest at risk of losing rec areas

Washington Hunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
4,133
Location
Rochester, Washington
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Federal officials in Alaska are taking a critical look at recreational offerings in the country's largest national forest, a cost-cutting move that could result in the closure of dozens of cabins unless the public pitches in.

The U.S. Forest Service has launched a five-year plan to meet budget shortfalls at the 17 million-acre Tongass National Forest, a popular travel destination featuring glaciers, wildlife viewing and lush shorelines.

Officials said the agency can't afford to maintain all of the existing recreation sites throughout the Southeast Alaska forest. Thus, it must determine what cabins and other visitor destinations to close, tear down or turn over to commercial operators.

But the public will be closely involved, officials said. They're holding a series of public workshops looking for ideas that could lead to fewer closures.

"There's only so much money to go around. We can't do it all unless we come up with innovative ideas on how to," said Scott Fitzwilliams, recreation staff officer for the Tongass.

It's part of a systemwide effort to counter an $8 billion maintenance backlog in the nation's 155 national forests, officials said.

On paper, the Forest Service is looking at doing away with 45 cabins and nine other sites in the Tongass, including campgrounds and picnic areas. Sites were targeted partly based on low usage, high maintenance needs and accessibility.

But officials emphasized they had to start with a preliminary list of possible ways to offset a $300,000 shortfall for routine maintenance and a $4 million backlog for long-term maintenance needs in the Tongass. Altogether, the Forest Service maintains more than 300 recreation sites, including about 150 cabins and wildlife viewing areas and two major visitor centers.

"This is just cold-hearted professionals taking a look at this," said Pete Griffin, Juneau district ranger. "What's lacking in all this is the public process. That's the missing piece."

Possible options include enlisting volunteers to help with maintenance, increasing user fees and farming out some remote, low-use properties to commercial groups or commercial operators such as sightseeing outfits, fishing and hunting guides or adventure businesses. The present list is not a done deal, officials said.

Any changes generally won't affect most of estimated 600,000 yearly visitors to the Tongass, according to officials.

The plan's flexibility is good news for Alaska's travel industry, including many small businesses in the region that rely on Tongass visitors who pay for day tours, kayaking excursions or transportation to cabins off the road system. Many tour operators were initially outraged by the plan, but their fears have eased after meeting with the Forest Service.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Wonder if they could stay open without the budget cuts to fund the war in Iraq? or Katrina?
 
Pointer,

They could also stay open if they paid their own way. If not enough people are using them to justify the expense, then why should the taxpayer's subsidize it. You guy's complain when a timber sale doesn't cover it's expenses, what's different here?

"Possible options include enlisting volunteers to help with maintenance, increasing user fees and farming out some remote, low-use properties to commercial groups or commercial operators such as sightseeing outfits, fishing and hunting guides or adventure businesses. The present list is not a done deal, officials said."

Are these horrible solutions to the problem or should we just continue to complain about the Iraq war and Katrina relief?
 
BHR,

Good analogy...I feel the same way about airlines, auto manufactures, halliburton, freeway systems, the U.S. military, public libraries, public schools, etc. etc. etc.

They dont pay their own way either so why should the tax-payers fund them?
 
Buzz,

You forgot to include NPR and PBS in your list. Would have to agree on most of your list except the military. It can't fund itself. Schools can't either unless we want parents to pay the direct costs of schooling for each of their children. That would be a novel idea but don't think it would go anywhere. Teachers unions and their lobbiest would shoot it down in a heart beat.
 
BHR,

I didnt forget to include NPR or PBS (that would be the ETC. ETC. part of the list).

I find it pretty entertaining that you think a couple remote cabins in Alaska shouldnt be subsidized when halliburton, boeing, united airlines, etc. etc. etc. are being subsidized for millions upon millions of dollars.

Nothing like worrying about the mice while the elephants run you over...
 
We should add that even a larger portion of monies go to subsidising lawyers... :eek:

Matter of fact, the amount for this would more than likely cover every thing you guys have both mentioned and a little more to boot.

But don't speak of the ills and evils the lawyers have perpetrated on this whole system, it is actually they, who have engineered the woe's mentioned above...
 
Buzz,

What part of I agree with most of your list did you not comprehend? You can whine about it, I'll spend my time working towards a smaller more effecient government. Gotta start somewhere, so I'll focus on the easy ones first, and as ball starts rolling go after the entrenched special interest groups next.
 
Cheese,

Can you please list the subsidy plans for lawyers?

Thanks in advance. And if you are unable to, once again, you will prove what a worthless blowhard you are.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Cheese,

Can you please list the subsidy plans for lawyers?

Thanks in advance. And if you are unable to, once again, you will prove what a worthless blowhard you are.


We could start with the billion dollar "Tobacco Settlement" hump.


There has been a lot of talk about lawyers making billions of dollars from the tobacco deal. How does this work and what will they make?


Attorneys who have brought suit to recover state and federal Medicaid expenditures will get contingency fees of between 3 and 33 percent, with most getting between 10 to 25 percent. For example in Texas, Attorney General Dan Morales and his attorneys got $2.3 billion. They secured a record $15 billion settlement with the nation's major cigarette makers. In Florida, attorneys stand to make $3 billion :rolleyes: :eek: :(
 
CJ,
Are you that stupid that you think that was a subsidy? That is merely a tax on smokers who pay more for cigarettes to the tobacco companies who then pass the money on to the States, who then spend the money on whatever social program they want. The "Tobacco Settlement" didn't hurt tobacco companies, it was a tax that smokers wanted when they started suing tobacco companies. If you don't want to pay the tax, quit smoking, or go to Mexico to buy your cigarettes.

I know my Cuban cigars don't have the tax on them.....
 
[quote Jose]
I know my Cuban cigars don't have the tax on them....thats because they are illegal....[like my Dominicans]. Are you sure yours aren`t filled with "skunk weed" hump


What do you call it when States Att. Generals sue and collect Billions in fee`s then kick down hundreds of millions to private firms for little work [low hours] then join the same law firm as a "Senior Partner"when they leave office after a short term ?

I am not a Smoker per see... but i don`t like it when lawyers sue for bullshit. :)
 
Can you please list the subsidy plans for lawyers?

OK.. I guess I will have to go into this a little more in-depth and will GRANT a question to be answered for our guner/sybil gutter toad...

Who is it that gets to play both sides of the money plate when the governments (the people) are being charged and sued for every reason under the sun???

Who is it that keeps these lawsuits afloat??? (And it's not from principle of doing the right thing; we all know there aren't many lawyers that play that game)

How much money does the government actually pay to lawyers every year???

The words may not be spelled out as "subsidies", but it is what it is.

I wouldn't say they actually work for what they reap and how many would dry up if the government changed the rules on how the pay would be proportioned out.

Lawyers are sneaky, slimy creatures, they will change the wording on every thing, so as to make some one else look guilty, but they are only wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Kinda funny how the fox (lawyers) can be in the hen house and blaming the hawk for the missing chickens... ;)
 
Chaser, you are flat wrong on this one. Comparing lawyers to people of low principle is a horrific insult to unprincipled people everywhere. :D
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,590
Messages
2,026,230
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)
Back
Top