More federal funding for outdoor recreation

[marksjeep]

Not sure if this is good, bad, or ugly. There is a measurable increase in outdoor recreation. Providing funds to support the infrastructure associated with the increase makes sense. Right? Maybe more people will poop in vault toilets, less people poop on the ground? OTOH, additional funds for marketing to continue the growth of outdoor recreation? I don't know that it needs any more marketing. Or any more growth. Figured the HT hobos can argue about this too. And it's relevant to our public lands.

https://www.bennet.senate.gov/publi...-promote-economic-growth-in-rural-communities

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

The outdoor rec pandemic fad will die off like everything else does and we will have a bunch of ghost town parking areas, picnic areas, etc...all the jobs created to maintain these things will vanish to. Waste of time...or as connectivity expands to every inch of the landscape (God help us) people will continue to utilize outdoor recreation because they can still use their precious technology wherever they go. Limited connectivity used to keep the masses at bay but as it keeps expanding so do the pooping in the middle of the trail retards.

 

[Bambistew]

I've yet to see an example where an improvement for public access/use has improved anything. One of my local fishing spots used to be a slog through mud and a fight for one of 15 parking spots, now its ADA accessible and has parking for 50 cars and is an absolute mob scene 24hrs a day when the fish are in. Totally destroyed the use. I can name a dozen others just like it here.

 

[Bob-WY]

The move towards outdoor rec is way longer than Covid, more and more to hiking, mountain biking, kayaks, trail racing, all LARGE growth over the last 10+ years. This is both good and bad, I wish they'd hit them with Pittman Robinson, to help pay for things, but I digress.

Improving access can be both good and bad. As Bambistew pointedout!

Maybe as people like hikers and mountain bikers get out there, they might run into public land access, aka checkerboard, and maybe get more focus on it

 

[nrpate05]

Seems well intentioned, I just hope the studies and science come before the development. How many more miles of trail does Colorado need? Is there money for enforcement and maintenance from an increase in uneducated users? How will all this infrastructure impact wildlife? Just hope these things are considered before we start developing parking lots and trails everywhere.

 

[Akcabin]

Better access. Guess it could be viewed as a double edged sward. I used to be able to slog threw the mud n glacial silt. Got injured n now kinda limited. And got older too. Sure glad we can get around easier at access points. That will still have that many people in there.
And I still know a few spots. Better access is just one funding allocation. Funding for biologists doing research helps us all.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The outdoor rec pandemic fad will die off like everything else does and we will have a bunch of ghost town parking areas, picnic areas, etc...all the jobs created to maintain these things will vanish to. Waste of time...or as connectivity expands to every inch of the landscape (God help us) people will continue to utilize outdoor recreation because they can still use their precious technology wherever they go. Limited connectivity used to keep the masses at bay but as it keeps expanding so do the pooping in the middle of the trail retards.

We've added equivalent to the population of CA since I graduated HS, it's never going to die off... I think we have to plan for further and further use.

 

[Gellar]

I should just leave this one alone...but...Some of you sound like so many other people that I hear when I write a grant and receive funding for paving a boat landing, extending docks to access rivers and lakes, build a nature center, etc..."why waste tax payer money on that? no ones going to use it." but that person is also the first person to call and complain when the boat landing that is there is over crowded, or the gravel parking lot is washed out after a heavy rain. Or you have to close your business in a small town because you refused to change to meet the changing demand of clientele.

AKcabin said it perfect, its a double edged sword. I feel contradicted when I am working on these projects to improve access because I like the solitude of the area and don't want to see it overcrowded, but if we improve access or increase access to an area could it possible spread some of the use out. Instead of having 50 vehicles at 1 area those 50 vehicles are spread out over 3 areas and not be all at the same trailhead or boat landing?

 

[Goodfish]

One of my old bosses said it well when he told me that some places should just be hard to get to and that’s OK.

 

[Beignet]

Maybe as people like hikers and mountain bikers get out there, they might run into public land access, aka checkerboard, and maybe get more focus on it

I wish they’d focus on that type of access instead of say, fighting against Wilderness expansion.

 

[Caseknife]

South of Stanley there is an ADA trail into a lake. Nice wide flat trail about a mile into the lake. The only problem is the road that gets to the trailhead is high clearance 4 wheel drive. Wonder who the brain child was that decided that would be a good lake to reconstruct the trail to make it ADA compliant when no normal wheel chair van will make it up the road? Things that make you go Hmmmm.

 

[lpcoutdoors]

I am probably just a fool, but I hope, I believe, that simple supply and demand dynamics can lead to more access to more places and more abundant game on fish on those existing and increase places, through demand increasing so much, increasing the pressure for supply so much, that our social, political, agricultural, and whatever other "al's" must respond. This dream is pretty idealistic and crazy, but crazy things have happened before and will again. Problem is with demand and supply dynamics is the problem will have to get pretty bad before a positive response naturally happens. So we can un-naturally, through policies and pushes, to be proactive in increasing supply or we can endure, embrace and encourage even the problem getting worse, with the hope and belief that it can and will get better. And in that later case, if supply doesn't respond to our increasing demand, well I can see that going two ways, some other good thing will come out of that or we will speed up our death.

And if this life I love is going to die, I'd rather it do so chasing hope and just get it over with sooner anyway.

 

[hank4elk]

As a retired Park Ranger I have a take on the situation. No one will like it.
I'd rather see funds for outdoor recreation than tax breaks for business and the wealthy. I would love a Backpack or Recreation use fee. 2% of gas tax to fund the increased use by vehicles....cruise fee added to fund coastal use.
The problem is the lack of funding to maintain Parks once something does get built.
I would see this often.
I'd have 3 parks and a campground to maintain solo and admin would ad the new 6 mi. bike path to the list which was "donated" by the developers when they build 400 homes or such. My help? Volunteers or inmate workers. Both of which cost me more time than it was worth as I would have to do it myself in the end.

Or planners with no long term plan. It all takes $. Poor planning without proper input costs $.

Less people mean less use. More people, more use.
We now see how the lack of outdoor activity in this country has a toll. On our Nations health in general. This toll has a cost.

NIMBY

 

[Hunting Wife]

I am also always torn on these issues. On the one hand, there is no denying the demand for access keeps increasing. Population growth in areas adjacent to public recreation access is insane, and all of that demand requires a huge investment in funds and staff time for maintenance. Spreading people out would be beneficial to specific resources in the short term.

On the other hand, budgets aren’t getting better and maintaining/enforcing what we’ve already got is a near impossible task. Makes it very difficult for me to justify further development, and that means crowding issues and user experiences will continue to worsen. I don’t see any simple solutions.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I am also always torn on these issues. On the one hand, there is no denying the demand for access keeps increasing. Population growth in areas adjacent to public recreation access is insane, and all of that demand requires a huge investment in funds and staff time for maintenance. Spreading people out would be beneficial to specific resources in the short term.

On the other hand, budgets aren’t getting better and maintaining/enforcing what we’ve already got is a near impossible task. Makes it very difficult for me to justify further development, and that means crowding issues and user experiences will continue to worsen. I don’t see any simple solutions.

King for a day I would put a lot of the money into staffing and maintenance. We hate staffing and maintenance of anything... for whatever reason.

Obviously, I've spent my life in the west, with countless days on public land, dad was a USFS ranger for a long time... anyway first time in my life I had ever seen a USFS Law enforcement officer was in Vermont last fall.

Instead of a new parking lot, I would love to a heck of a lot more USFS/BLM officers out there in the field, I want a group whose whole job is dealing the domestic/bighorn issue, etc.

 

[nrpate05]

I am also always torn on these issues. On the one hand, there is no denying the demand for access keeps increasing. Population growth in areas adjacent to public recreation access is insane, and all of that demand requires a huge investment in funds and staff time for maintenance. Spreading people out would be beneficial to specific resources in the short term.

On the other hand, budgets aren’t getting better and maintaining/enforcing what we’ve already got is a near impossible task. Makes it very difficult for me to justify further development, and that means crowding issues and user experiences will continue to worsen. I don’t see any simple solutions.

I think that is a very valid point about enforcement. In CO there is a huge issue with people building illegal trails and violating seasonal closures, among other things, but the agencies don't have near the resources to deal with all these violations.

If this bill simply provides additional funding for building infrastructure without continued funding for maintenance, staffing, enforcement, etc., it would overall be a disservice to the rural communities it is supposed to help. We already have a major maintenance backlog on public lands in the US. Should we pour more money into building things that we struggle to maintain?

Also, I wonder if the locals of these rural towns really want an increase in marketing. In a lot of places that doesn't seem necessary and that money could probably be used better elsewhere.

 

[Gellar]

Also, I wonder if the locals of these rural towns really want an increase in marketing. In a lot of places that doesn't seem necessary and that money could probably be used better elsewhere.

I live outside of a small town on the edge of the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife Refuge. Year round residents in town are about 200, on a holiday weekend in the summer the number of people could easily be 25 times that number. Many of the people who live year round in town are not originally from the town, but have moved there for the same reason as the visitors. The year round residents complain all year about the tourists, myself included, but they don't seem to complain about the plumber, electrician, two gas stations, two restaurants, auto mechanic, boat mechanic and a bank among other services that would not be possible if the tourists were not there.

 

[Hunting Wife]

My experience is along the line of @Gellar. It isn’t the long-time locals who are asking for additional recreational developments. It’s typically newer residents and tourists. Locals may be ambivalent about it.

The resident/nonresident disparity aside, there is often quite a bit of support for funding of “new” recreational facilities or access opportunities, but funding for maintenance or enforcement is much more likely to be met with cries of “government waste” or “overreach”.