The Fallacy of “Spreading Out The Use” in Land Management

[hank4elk]

As a Park Ranger I was not popular among the administs.
My suggestion was to limit use of wild places trail wise and invest in better infrastructure in existing areas.
I was one of the few who had attended state & Nat. trail construction seminars and training.
When I left there were 3 bike trails where one had been in a little canyon and the tri-atheleties had built one right under the nesting sites for condors,eagles,falcons...for one event.
The county paid a $1mil fine to EPA...

When I moved here a local asked what I did. I said retired from PR job.
He said well we ain't got no Park Rangers here. I said I know, there are no parks.

Less people is a good thing.

 

[Nameless Range]

This article was shared with me today, and I thought it was really well done, and speaks to the value of intelligent trail planning, which I think must be a piece of the pie revisited on our heavily recreated landscapes. Whether it is the development of new trails, or a rethinking of how existing trails are used, I don't think it will be easy.

That said, the final paragraph ends with the premise in the OP I question as a promise capable of deliverance.


“The more we build, the less impact we’re ultimately gonna have,” he said. “Overall, the better the user experience is going to be.”

I understand where this line of thinking comes from, and it is true to a point, but also plants a seed that can quickly grow out of control.

Happy trails? Lessons from Curt Gowdy on outdoor recreation design - WyoFile

Visitation to the state park mushroomed by more than 900% since crews started building a trail system there in 2006. As it strives to balance benefits with impacts, what can the state learn from Gowdy?

wyofile.com

 

[JLS]

“The more we build, the less impact we’re ultimately gonna have,” he said. “Overall, the better the user experience is going to be.”

I view trail planning much like I do subdivision planning. Leave undeveloped corridors and shoot for higher density of trails in developed areas. Just like I’d rather see more homes on 1/2 acre lots than fewer on 10 acres.

 

[Nameless Range]

I view trail planning much like I do subdivision planning. Leave undeveloped corridors and shoot for higher density of trails in developed areas. Just like I’d rather see more homes on 1/2 acre lots than fewer on 10 acres.

Largely agree. Where I kind of nearly always have a problem, particularly locally, is when places that historically were undeveloped, or at least largely were, are proposed as places to develop a higher density of trails. Could be new areas entirely, or could be an expansion of the trails into adjacent wild lands. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like the place name designation of “front country”.


Trails are kind of like a cancer - particularly given the lack of enforcement on public lands.

From the perspective of a hunter, or just someone who appreciates the trailless, once you turn something into a high trail density area it has basically been sacrificed.

I know it’s damned if you do damned if you dont.

 

[Sytes]

Follow-up responses from Representatives Tester and Daines from a message sent to both prior to this thread (March 29th) though related to the topic.

Not playing politics, per say, however, consider the two responses and evaluate for yourselves.

The delay for sharing this HT message, Daines response was received April 12th. Meanwhile, Tester's response was received two days ago, August 23rd. Delayed though from my perspective, a much better response to a constituent's comment/request.

The message below is a copy/paste to both Representatives of MT with swapped names in the first paragraph, as I voted for both.

"Senator Daines,

I've voted for you each election cycle and, for the most part, satisfied with my vote. I've also maintained my Jon Tester vote. I'm a registered Independent. Considering our trench warfare, party-line politics, I implore you to look across the aisle on public access to our national forests.
My interest:

I'd like to see a biology led commission bring a collaborative effort of our public's multi use interests of our public lands. With e-bikes gaining economic strength in our public land sector, access trails, and our increased influx of residents from outside our "Last Best Place", we need to get ahead of this.
Instead of hunters digging into trench warfare with cyclists, a real look at our future necessitates evaluation of our public land access.
Bringing together representatives such as RMEF (As you know, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation), IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association), and include TNC (The Nature Conservancy) for their great private land conservation success while permitting cycles, hoof, and boot access while logging, thinning, etc.
I would suggest the exclusion of contentious, extreme organizations who demand all or nothing bickering. I believe we would have a better opportunity to unite OUR public access usage to OUR public lands while minimizing impact to OUR flora and fauna.

Our great State of Montana needs biological guidance for our current and future public use of our national forests. Population is booming. Speaking specifically about access to our public lands - I believe a quality coalition / commission is a great starting point.

Respectfully,

Montana Resident

XXXXXXXX"

Responses:

Daines:

April 12, 2023

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to transferring federal public lands to state ownership. As a fifth generation Montanan and an avid outdoorsman, I know access to Montana's public lands is important to our way of life and our state's heritage. I spent much of my youth backpacking in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness and want to preserve Montana's unparalleled natural beauty so my children and grandchildren can do the same.Let me first stress that I do not support the mass transfer or sale of federal public lands to state or private ownership. Further, I will not support any proposals that would reduce Montanans' access to our public lands, nor will I support efforts that result in the sale of public lands that Montanans so greatly value. Montana's public lands are an important part of our state's heritage, our economy, and our way of life.

During the 116th Congress I championed the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, which provides permanent, dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program and addresses the deferred maintenance backlog on our public lands. The LWCF is a critical conservation tool that has expanded public access to public lands, addressed checkerboard land ownership patterns, and increased sportsmen and recreation opportunities. I do believe we need to do a much better job managing our federal lands, however. The worsening health of Montana's forests has resulted in increased risk of catastrophic wildfires. The economies in our forested counties are suffering and have some of the highest unemployment rates in Montana due to the dramatic decrease in timber harvest on federal lands. I will continue to work across party lines in order to cut unnecessary red tape, eliminate frivolous litigation, create good-paying timber jobs, and give the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) the tools needed to protect our communities from deadly wildfires. As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which has jurisdiction over federal land management and forestry issues, please know that I will keep your views in mind as I work both to ensure that Montana's natural heritage is preserved and to protect livelihoods that rely on access to our lands.

Again, thanks for contacting me. It is my number one priority in the Senate to represent the values and interests of the people of Montana, and your input is very helpful as I do. I invite you to visit my website, www.daines.senate.gov, for updates about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Montana or to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

Sincerely,

Steve Daines
United States Senator

Tester:

Dear XXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me about collaborating to ensure that our public lands can be enjoyed by all. I am always interested in hearing about what is on the minds of Montanans, and I appreciate your perspective on this issue.

Montana's public lands and proud hunting traditions help drive our state's $7.1 billion outdoor recreation economy. I believe supporting science-based wildlife conservation efforts is critically important. I also believe when it comes to land and wildlife management, local stakeholders must always have a seat at the table to ensure our public lands are around for our kids and grandkids, and put to the best use.

I will keep your views in mind as I work with my colleagues on legislation relating to public land access. Your input is an important part of the legislative process. I hope you will contact me again with your concerns or if I can be of further assistance.


Sincerely,

Jon Tester
United States Senator

While greatly delayed, I appreciated Tester's response.

YMMV.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Everyone seems to be really into changing the names of places now, so how about we change some names? “Sodomy Meadows” sounds nice. How about “Hot Afternoon Garage Saling With Your Mother-In-Law” Trail? A whole wilderness area could simply be named “Shit.” The right names might

Yosemite’s Half Dome: Splat Mountain. Cathedral Trail on Katahdin: Slippery Granite in Fog. Grand Canyon: Mother Earth’s Big Gash. And Haaland could get all Forest Service publications to preface: “This National Forest was stolen from the Indigenous Peoples of North America”.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Follow-up responses from Representatives Tester and Daines from a message sent to both prior to this thread (March 29th) though related to the topic.

Not playing politics, per say, however, consider the two responses and evaluate for yourselves.

The delay for sharing this HT message, Daines response was received April 12th. Meanwhile, Tester's response was received two days ago, August 23rd. Delayed though from my perspective, a much better response to a constituent's comment/request.

The message below is a copy/paste to both Representatives of MT with swapped names in the first paragraph, as I voted for both.



Responses:

Daines:



Tester:


While greatly delayed, I appreciated Tester's response.

YMMV.

Both those responses looked pretty good. Down here in Colorado, I be shocked to get honest responses like that from the trio of Hickenlooper, Bennet, and Polis.