The Question That None Of Greater Yellowstone's Conservation Groups Are Willing To Confront

[longbow51]

" Amid all the cheerleading to create more access to the backcountry, building more trails, filling the rivers with more boaters, monetizing visitors every way possible and having state tourism bureaus spending many millions annually in advertising to promote our public lands, many of which are already crowded, few are reflecting on the ecological toll being exacted. ....

I was on a governor's task force in the late 90s (one of the few "lay" members) charged with addressing stream crowding. Kind of fun, with ideas like "Pass a law making it illegal to write about Montana rivers", but that pesky First Amendment! Ultimately, nothing much came of it, just like the current efforts to limit crowds on the Madison. The outfitter's lobby is just too strong. Same thing with hunting outfitters; much harder to find ranchland where locals used to hunt that isn't leased to an outfittting group. How many would crowd the rivers if you actually had to learn to fish on your own, without a guide showing you the fly to use and where to cast? And, now too, much of public hunting land is outfitted. Hard for the DIY guy with a few hundred bucks in his pocket to compete.

The author of the article is spot-on. Again, Abbey warned us of this 50 years ago. By monetizing our resources ("Arches National Money-Mint" Park) we have set the future. As he put it so aptly (from memory) "deaf to thunderstorms in the mountains but able to hear a dollar bill drop on motel carpet".

We didn't listen then, and, I'm guessing, won't listen now.

 

[JLS]

Interesting maybe putting info on Instagram, hunt forums, or Facebook could have negative impacts. Maybe places we love to visit would be effected. Certainly makes you wonder.

There have been articles about this in the past year. It’s a real phenomenon.

 

[Irrelevant]

So I found the crowds this weekend. Bringing the canoe back to the boat ramp I had to part a sea of 30+ software engineers (all indian [India]) on a guided trip from Seattle. They were nice and all but they were all lined up taking selfies of the lake and the mts in the background completely blocking the ramp and the beach on either side. I had to ask them to please move a bit, and even then they didn't move more than a foot or two. Didn't think I needed to bring a mask to go canoeing, but I should have.

'Nother side note, the Enchantments are supposed to be the best of the best of WA wilderness. I have yet to venture into the area. It's all permit for overnight use, and should be for day use. They had 200+ cars in a 12 car parking lot earlier this spring. Without a doubt we will look back on the things we complain about now longingly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Too many damn people. It’s stuff like this that makes me think @Ben Lamb might be on to something with his Thanos gauntlet.

Corona took the comedy out of the Thanos bit. Anyways, I've moved on and found the dystopian leader this nation needs.

 

[EWO]

Seems like SE WY is turning into the new front range. Lots of people this summer in the mountains, and just like everywhere else, lots of trash.

No kidding....I have never seen it that crowded. The top of the pass was full parkings lots and cars on both sides of the roads for a solid 2 miles. Wasn't so bad further down the road but still busier than I have ever seen up there.

 

[mdhunter61]

"Monetizing the resource" is for real. The Recreation.gov website is a tool that provides information on public parks, trails, cabins, campsites, and many other public resources. The Department of Interior, Forest Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, and a couple of other agencies or sub-agencies team to fund and manage a contractor who maintains the Rec.gov website and all of the associated links to public resources. When I was still working as a government contractor (retired earlier this year), I looked at chasing the recompete back about 8 or 9 years ago. A big goal of the agencies is to maximize the use of these resources by exposing them to more of the public. That goal is potentially at odds with the limited or responsible use that we are discussing here...

 

[Nameless Range]

"Monetizing the resource" is for real. The Recreation.gov website is a tool that provides information on public parks, trails, cabins, campsites, and many other public resources. The Department of Interior, Forest Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, and a couple of other agencies or sub-agencies team to fund and manage a contractor who maintains the Rec.gov website and all of the associated links to public resources. When I was still working as a government contractor (retired earlier this year), I looked at chasing the recompete back about 8 or 9 years ago. A big goal of the agencies is to maximize the use of these resources by exposing them to more of the public. That goal is potentially at odds with the limited or responsible use that we are discussing here...

That is interesting.

As a part of the problem and a member of the herd of campers myself this summer, we have used rec.gov to reserve camping spots this summer. In fact, if we are not going to engage in dispersed camping, but instead are going to camp at a campground, I really like rec.gov. It guarantees you will have a spot, and holds people accountable so they don't park their camper in one location for 2 months as I have seen in other campgrounds. I guess what I am saying is there is some sort of gray area between organizing and essentially managing/throttling recreation, and advertising it.

 

[huntnpack]

Small tangent, I actually started to have a rather heated back and forth with Wes Siler of Outside Mag... He has no concept of actual wildlife impacts nor the recreation impact on others. "

That dude misses a lot of concepts...

 

[mdhunter61]

That is interesting.

As a part of the problem and a member of the herd of campers myself this summer, we have used rec.gov to reserve camping spots this summer. In fact, if we are not going to engage in dispersed camping, but instead are going to camp at a campground, I really like rec.gov. It guarantees you will have a spot, and holds people accountable so they don't park their camper in one location for 2 months as I have seen in other campgrounds. I guess what I am saying is there is some sort of gray area between organizing and essentially managing/throttling recreation, and advertising it.

I hear you, and agree that Rec.gov is a great resource that helps people figure out what public resources are available, what resources are already booked, and how to book the available resources. The sticky point is potentially that the agencies expressed a strong desire to increase the use of public resources that are not fully utilized (i.e., fully booked up). This could lead to maximized use, potential overcrowding of the resource, and much more crowding in the "hidden gems" that a few people used to know about, but that were generally not known about by the public at large.

 

[Hunting Wife]

It’s a very tricky issue for which I certainly don’t have the answer. The land management agency budgets have been in the downward slide for a long time now, staff are shrinking, maintenance is falling by the wayside. If the public doesn’t appreciate and enjoy these resources, how will the funding of such ever be prioritized?

Obviously the flip side is the very real phenomenon of loving places to death. How to balance those, I have no idea.

 

[JLS]

It’s a very tricky issue for which I certainly don’t have the answer. The land management agency budgets have been in the downward slide for a long time now, staff are shrinking, maintenance is falling by the wayside. If the public doesn’t appreciate and enjoy these resources, how will the funding of such ever be prioritized?

Obviously the flip side is the very real phenomenon of loving places to death. How to balance those, I have no idea.

Nailed it. We are reaping the rewards of decades of underfunding. Pretty hard to focus on strategic planning for the future when you're not allowed to maintain your current workload.

 

[mdhunter61]

Nailed it. We are reaping the rewards of decades of underfunding. Pretty hard to focus on strategic planning for the future when you're not allowed to maintain your current workload.

I wonder how the funding for conservation programs compares to the SNAP Program funding, which I believe(?) is also funded through the USDA...

 

[JLS]

I wonder how the funding for conservation programs compares to the SNAP Program funding, which I believe(?) is also funded through the USDA...

I have no idea. I do know that for many years, budget appropriations for maintenance went to put out forest fires. Thankfully, that train wreck has finally been changed.

 

[Nameless Range]

It’s a very tricky issue for which I certainly don’t have the answer. The land management agency budgets have been in the downward slide for a long time now, staff are shrinking, maintenance is falling by the wayside. If the public doesn’t appreciate and enjoy these resources, how will the funding of such ever be prioritized?

Obviously the flip side is the very real phenomenon of loving places to death. How to balance those, I have no idea.

A phenomenon I wonder about is how well advocates, in terms of quantity, equate to better funding. Theoretically if a certain percentage of users become advocates, and advocates equate to better funding, based on what I have seen this summer, sooner than later public agencies should be awash in funds.

We have plenty of examples of an increase in advocates making a difference, but it's also all tied up into the messiness of politics, which is a concern. On top of that, the problem with loving a place to death is that sans resurrection, death is often permanent. The places where I grew up that have been loved to death or near death, are basically written off as ̶S̶a̶c̶r̶i̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ Recreation Areas, and so much of the charm they once had is seemingly gone forever. There's an aspect here of the ticking clock, and we are up against it.

I know it's a very hard thing to balance. Not trying to be polemic about it.

 

[Irrelevant]

A phenomenon I wonder about is how well advocates, in terms of quantity, equate to better funding. Theoretically if a certain percentage of users become advocates, and advocates equate to better funding, based on what I have seen this summer, sooner than later public agencies should be awash in funds.

We have plenty of examples of an increase in advocates making a difference, but it's also all tied up into the messiness of politics, which is a concern. On top of that, the problem with loving a place to death is that sans resurrection, death is often permanent. The places where I grew up that have been loved to death or near death, are basically written off as ̶S̶a̶c̶r̶i̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ Recreation Areas, and so much of the charm they once had is seemingly gone forever. There's an aspect here of the ticking clock, and we are up against it.

I know it's a very hard thing to balance. Not trying to be polemic about it.

I think there's a big different between self-proclaimed advocates that I see using our public lands and actual advocates that go to public meetings and write their representatives. Despite seeing a large increase in the former, I don't think we're seeing an increase in the latter.

 

[Trial153]

On the flip side, people that use it see value in it and may advocate for it. I see more upside in this situations than I do in oil pad or wind farm or solar monstrosity

 

[Hunting Wife]

I see upsides and downsides. I also don’t like seeing everything developed for resources. Maybe we’ll get more advocates, but with more users often comes more demand for development of a different kind... more camping, more trails, better roads, nicer bathrooms, more boating, more biking, more, more, more. The simple fact is, they aren’t making more land. But we are damn sure making more people and advocates or no, the pressure on our public lands will only ever go up. The type of pressure may change, but we’re going to have to manage increasing demands of some kind no matter what. How to best plan for that and balance all those demands from all those people is the thing that seems particularly daunting to me.

 

[Wyohunt]

Many of my former wild places have been developed and are now populated with people with generators, loud music and parties. I don’t understand why government agencies have to do this. I didn’t get a say or a vote. It is a disgrace and it has become very difficult for me to get away to a QUIET peaceful place. There are a lot of people in the world and I think there will come a day when there are no wild and quiet places left. I live in the least populated state in the US so I can only imagine what it is like in more populated areas. This must be frustrating for a lot of other bloggers here too?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Many of my former wild places have been developed and are now populated with people with generators, loud music and parties. I don’t understand why government agencies have to do this. I didn’t get a say or a vote. It is a disgrace and it has become very difficult for me to get away to a QUIET peaceful place. There are a lot of people in the world and I think there will come a day when there are no wild and quiet places left. I live in the least populated state in the US so I can only imagine what it is like in more populated areas. This must be frustrating for a lot of other bloggers here too?

In part this is why I'm pretty obdurate about building any new roads, mines, solar panels, wind mills, OG, whatever on public lands.

 

[thusby]

Access is the killer. You get the road first. Then you get the campground. Then some dingus builds a bar. Then you get the wheelers and bikers. Repeat up the road.