In no particular order:
1. Shout-out to the Montana Department of Natural Resources for their Forest Management Dashboard. It is in line with my long-standing call for a national People’s Database. It has pretty much everything I would want to know. For some projects the prescription is summarized, in others it says “see the EA” a link might be handy. I’m always a fan of States being the laboratories of democracy, still I think it would be handy if there were a national effort to develop something like this. Maybe there is?
2. Don’t Believe Everything You Read Department
According to this article:
The new GOP tax and spending law could increase the risk of massive wildfires by stripping critical National Forest System funding and increasing logging on National Park Service lands.
That’s according to a new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Lead author and center Climate Analyst Matt Sedlar said the new law removes $450 million needed to manage forests not owned by the federal government or states.
*********
Sedlar said the administration’s recent decision to cancel rules that prohibited development on roadless areas of the National Park system could also increase wildfire risks.
“By rescinding that rule, and then removing environmental reviews,” said Sedlar, “they’re opening up a lot of areas to development within the National Parks. And there’s a lot of research out there that shows that logging increases wildfire risk, mostly due to the waste that’s left over.”
So I clicked on the link and it was basically a blog post-like piece. Which didn’t mention anything about National Parks. I’ m curious so I’ll ask Sedlar if he really said it.
2. Softening tourism market in Colorado.
This article has a number of interesting twists. As a person who has observed high overnight rates and avoid them, ‘m not surprised that front range visitors who don’t stay overnight are growing in numbers.
Hmm. I understand about Canadians, but Euros, Aussies and Kiwis not going to Colorado because of “the political climate” and “tariffs”? Which raises the question “is this just Colorado, or broader?” and “does it differ by summer vs. winter tourism?” And maybe they don’t come because it has become too crowded and expensive, or maybe their economies aren’t doing so well? So many questions.
International travelers stay, on average, for eight days when they vacation in Colorado. And they spend three to five times more per person than domestic travelers. Those international travelers can boost local economies with fewer people in town, creating a smaller impact than, say, lots of day-trippers who spend less.
“International is one of our top priorities,” Wolfe said. “We know these are high-value guests for communities.”
******
Lodgekeepers are trying to offset the dip in numbers by raising room rates, which are up about 4% compared with 2024. But that can be a tricky game. Raise prices too much and communities can pretty much eliminate an entire segment of visitors.
********
I don’t envy folks in those towns. If they increase taxes on short-term rentals, then they make them more expensive so that fewer people can visit (at least the less-desirables from the Front Range). At the same time, too many STRs means that workers have nowhere to live.
3. Charging Internationals More at Parks Legislation Introduced. We’ve discussed this before, it was originally an idea espoused by PERC.
I don’t really see the counterarguments as laid out here in the SLC Tribune. $25 more would deter international tourism?
The Senate Democrats who spoke to NOTUS mostly said they had not studied the specifics of the Banks bill. But, like King, they were concerned it would deter visitors from coming to the United States or its parks, worsening a decrease in international tourism due to Trump’s tariffs. (Projections in late spring anticipated a $12 billion loss in international visitor spending in the U.S. in 2025.)
As far as I can tell, tariffs are still being negotiated.. so I’m not sure I see this.
“There’s a lot of hostility toward America,” Democratic Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado said. “As a small-business person, when my sales go down, when revenues go down, I don’t raise prices. I try to find ways to cut prices, make people feel that it’s still advantageous.”
Does Hick really think $25 is going to affect folks who pay for plane fares, lodging, food, car rentals and all that (e.g., baggage charges can be more than $25)? I think that there are interesting questions to be asked about the decrease in tourism, but I think we also need to ask some questions about the international tourism industry. It’s not known for paying high wages. Plane travel is bad for the climate. Does it improve the lives of locals? Are more people on trails good for the environment and wildlife? I’m not against the industry, but like other industries, there is an ebb and flow.
4. How Some Others Think About Tourism anti tourism demonstration in Europe.
The U.S. State Department is warning travelers to exercise caution when traveling to Europe amid a renewed wave of anti-tourism protests.
The U.S. Embassy in Spain issued an alert ahead of anti-tourism demonstrations, as well as “additional protests related to the conflict in the Middle East,” throughout the country on Sunday, including in popular tourist destinations such as Barcelona, San Sebastián, Valencia, and the Balearic island of Mallorca.
In Mallorca, off the coast of eastern Spain, demonstrators marched through the streets of the capital city of Palma de Mallorca and used water guns on tourists, protesting overtourism and the sharp rise of the local cost of living, an ongoing issue.
Protestors also gathered in Portugal’s capital of Lisbon and across Italian cities like Milan and Venice. Some held signs with messages such as “Lisbon against touristification” and “As you come, I have to go.”
5. Digital Tree Marking and Questions. The Forest Service produced a nice roundup on digital tree marking methods and the results of a study comparing that to traditional methods.
The answer has come in the Coconino National Forest’s Walker Hill Demonstration Project with The Nature Conservancy—using digital tree marking methods. Results proved to be five times faster and 10 times less expensive, demonstrating how to get more done at less cost and in less time with a tablet in hand instead of a paint can.
Some folks don’t like this and I ran into one on X. They would like to view the trees selected and boundaries. To me, though, it should be possible for stakeholders to visit the site and run the program themselves to see what the boundaries are and what trees would be cut. I wonder whether that is a possibility. Of course, there’s the issue of “contractor doesn’t do what’s in the prescription” but it seems to me that that is a separate issue and can occur regardless of technology. Does anyone know? And of course, this all leaves aside the legal question of who should be marking and oversight that Vladimir laid out in this comment.
6. AFRC comment letter on NEPA Interim Rules: supports public comment.
There is too much going on with NEPA at the same time for me to make sense of it. There is a link to the AFRC comment letter in their August newsletter.
I know that many folks are concerned with any reduction of public comment periods. Seems like that’s one thing everyone agrees on.
Regarding public comment, AFRC acknowledged the delays often caused by comment periods but stressed their value for project development and legal protection. Formal comment opportunities allow the forest industry to share technical and economic input with federal agencies and help limit the scope of future litigation. Eliminating these opportunities could lead to broader, more disruptive lawsuits and limit stakeholder engagement.