Recreation

Government Agencies, OHV Groups Work Together on Compliance with Rules

by
Sharing the trails on Tenderfoot Mountain in Summit County, Colorado.

Thanks to Bob Berwyn for this.. wonder if this approach is unique to Colorado?

2011 pilot program resulted in 10,000 contacts with riders in problem areas

By Summit Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY — Colorado officials will continue an off-highway vehicle monitoring program that has helped increase compliance with off-road rules in Colorado.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission last week approved $300,000 in funding to extend the pilot program launched last year.

In 2011, teams of law enforcement officers from Colorado State Parks, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management contacted 10,000 individual riders in problem areas identified by environmental and quiet recreation groups, according to state trails program manager Tom Morrissey.

Morrissey said less than 5 percent of those contacts resulted in warnings or citations — the majority for failure to comply with OHV registration requirements.

Rangers spent about 90 percent of their time on or around designated OHV routes. Morrissey said they saw little evidence of off-trail damage but did report a significant need for increased trail maintenance and better signage to identify designated routes.

Commissioner Jim Pribyl said the program had a successful first year.

“We appreciate how the OHV community worked with us to create a program that increased education and compliance with both state and federal OHV regulations,” said Pribyl. “The project has clearly shown that law-enforcement visibility deters illegal off-trail riding and increases compliance.”

Commissioners unanimously voted to fund the program for 2012, suggesting rangers focus on new compliance check areas and use of remote sensing equipment like trail monitors and game cameras to monitor illegal or user-created trails. Several commissioners also suggested that the trail program tap the local knowledge possessed by district wildlife managers to identify problem areas with a need for monitoring and enforcement.

Morrissey also briefed the commission on the progress of this year’s recreational trail grant process. Fifty-seven motorized project applications totaling $6.8 million were submitted by the December 2011 deadline. About $4 million in funding is available for motorized OHV trail grants in 2012. Applications for non-motorized trail projects totaled $4.3 million, with about $1.6 million available to award. Commissioners will vote on grant awards at the April 12 commission meeting in Pueblo.

Colorado’s OHV Trails Program is funded through the sale of OHV registrations and use permits. Over 160,000 OHVs were registered or permitted for use in Colorado during the 2010-2011 registration years. Revenue generated by the annual $25.25 user permit are used to support the statewide OHV program, the OHV registration program and the OHV trail grant program, including OHV law enforcement.

Fee Simple: Why We Should Pay to Hike, Boat, Fish, Camp and Just Plain Visit Our National Forests

by

From Char Miller here:

John McKinney means well, and his sentiments scan nicely: “I don’t think a nature hike is a forest product and that hikers are forest consumers. We’re out there for something that you can’t put a price on.”

That’s what he told the Los Angeles Times following the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in February that the Forest Service had overstepped its bounds when charging for access to the national forests in the American west. According to the court, the agency’s Adventure Pass system, which sold one-day passes for $5 (and an annual one for $30), violated provisions of the 2004 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). That legal finding cheered McKinney no end, but he’ll discover that we’ll pay a steep price for the court’s elimination of user fees.

The author of such standards as Southern California: A Day Hiker’s Guide, John McKinney’s Wild LA, and The Hiker’s Way: Hike Smart. Live Well. Go Green, McKinney knows how to navigate in the woods, revel in the joys of a dusty tramp, and find bliss in exertion.
He is incorrect, however, about his aesthetic claims for the non-economic character of a high-country ramble. Wrong too is his implication that spending a day trekking through the Angeles or the Los Padres national forests, or camping out in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area of the San Bernardino National Forest, is an apolitical, non-consumptive act.

Let me address the second point first.

These rough-and-ready terrain are the creature of politics. Each of the four national forests of Southern California – including the Cleveland, located north and east of San Diego – was established shortly after the passage of the passage of 1891 Forest Reserve Act. This legislative initiative gave presidents the power to establish reserves on federally owned public land in the west. Yet as a matter of course no forest was ever the result of a top-down directive from the chief executive. Instead, local conservationists, civic leaders, business interests, and an array of citizens demanded from the bottom up that these public lands secure increased federal presence and regulation that in time a national forest would bring.

In this region, that protection had much more to do with the maintenance of watersheds, as timber cutting was not nearly as important as it was in the well-wooded Sierra, Cascade, or Mendocino ranges. Without downstream interests articulating the essential contribution of clean and plentiful water for community development, then, these national forests would not exist. And the recreational opportunities these mountainous landscapes offer today are a direct result of those earlier advocates’ social convictions and political maneuvers.

Think about that enduring gift the next time you lace up, stretch out, and head into the Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area. When you do, recall as well that this landscape exists within another political context: all public lands that bear the wilderness designation, exist because of the1964 Wilderness Act; its passage took nearly thirty years of wrangling in and out of Congress, and the most passionate and persistent lobbying emanated from the Wilderness Society, founded in 1935.
Benton MacKaye | Photo: Appalachian Trail Conservancy/Wikipedia/Creative Commons License
“All we desire to save from invasion,” asserted the society’s founders Robert Sterling Yard, Benton MacKaye, and Robert Marshall, “is that extremely minor fraction of outdoor America which yet remains free from mechanical sights and sounds and smell.” Their words have had special meaning in car-crazed Los Angeles.

Paying for that silence, or as much quiet as is possible in this hyper-industrialized world, is part of the civic obligation built into the 1905 creation of the national-forest system. From the start, Congress demanded that the forests (and thus their users) operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, and the optimistic first Chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, promised to fulfill that charge.

His was a tough promise to fulfill. While fees for grazing, later timber harvests, and later still recreation may have bolstered the agency’s efforts to research and regulate resource use; protect critical watersheds and endangered species; and enhance recreational infrastructure, they never have fully balanced the budget.

Nor could they: the rates have been kept artificially low to stimulate economic development, so that until the 1980s the deficits were offset through additional public spending. Caring for the Land and Serving the People – the Forest Service’s longstanding motto and commitment – always has cost money.

These expenses spiked in the late 1980s as timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest were scaled back rapidly in response to the Spotted Owl controversy; to protect the endangered bird’s habitat, clear-cutting of old-growth forests, which once generated considerable income for the Forest Service, was largely shut down. By the mid-1990s, the agency faced declining budgets, and began laying off staff and reducing services.

In hopes of stabilizing these budgetary shortfalls, in 1996 Congress authorized the establishment of a recreational fee pilot project, in which hikers, boaters, campers, and other visitors to the forests would pay a minimal amount to access specific services (a boating ramp, say, a picnic area). The funding collected on an individual forest would remain there, enhancing its ability to rebuild trails, staff visitor centers, or insure a steady supply of the all-important toilet paper at trailhead bathrooms.
A waterfall in the Cleveland National Forest | Photo: Chazz Layne/Flickr/Creative Commons License
Despite these and other assorted benefits, user fees kicked off a heated debate. Hiking guru John McKinney was among those who refused to buy an Adventure Pass, a protest and pushback that in 2004 led Congress to rewrite the conditions of the fee-demo program through the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. It prohibits the Forest Service (as well as the Bureau of Land Management) from charging for these site-specific activities:

• General access to national forests and grasslands and Bureau of Land Management areas; • Horseback riding, walking through, driving through, or boating through areas where no facilities or services are used; • Access to overlooks or scenic pullouts; • Undesignated parking areas where no facilities are provided for • Picnicking along roads or trails; and • In addition individuals under 16 will not be charged an entrance or standard amenity fee.

These provisions would become the basis for a lawsuit filed against Arizona’s Coronado National Forest for levying fees on day hiking from and picnicking along Catalina Highway as it rises up the flanks of Mount Lemmon near Tucson. A lower court dismissed the original suit that alleged the Forest Service was in violation of REA. But in February, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that earlier decision and supported the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding:

REA unambiguously prohibits the Forest Service from charging fees…for recreational visitors who park a car, then camp at undeveloped sites, picnic along roads or trailsides, or hike through the area without using the facilities and services.

While McKinney and other opponents of the Adventure Pass celebrated this legal win, yodeling for unfettered access to all public lands, their victory will prove Pyrrhic.

Because federal land-management agencies such as the Forest Service do not have substantial-enough budgets to cover their real costs. Because the 9th Circuit’s decision has stripped forests raise badly needed dollars to clean up such trash-littered, high-impact areas as Lytle Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest and the San Gabriel River Ranger District of the Angeles. And because the American people persist in their stubborn refusal to pay taxes without curbing their insatiable demand for “free” governmental services, these great scenic assets and essential recreational spaces have and will continue to collapse under the weight of our inaction.

Until we can legislate more robust and consistent financial support for the agencies that steward our public lands, no one – not even hikers – should get a free pass.

Char Miller is the Director and W.M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis at Pomona College, author of “Public Lands, Public Debates: A Century of Controversy” (Oregon State University Press), and editor of “Cities and Nature in the American West.” He comments every week on environmental issues. Read more of his columns here

Note from Sharon: There are other photos in the web version of this story, I just reposted one.

So what do you think; develop better legislation for rec fees, have free will offerings to a non-profit, start a lobbying group for rec funds or ????.

LA Times Editorial on Recreation Fees

by

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one.

National forest fees work
The U.S. Forest Service should work to change the law regarding fees in national forests to reflect the realities of modern recreational use.

Here’s the link.

March 1, 2012
Does a hiker go to the bathroom in the woods? It might matter, under a recent federal court ruling.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled correctly last month that parking fees were being wrongly levied in many areas of America’s national forests. A 2004 law is quite specific that it is impermissible to charge fees for parking or for “general use” of the forests. But while the court’s ruling was perfectly in line with the law, the real problem is with the law itself. Under its provisions, if you use the bathroom while hiking in the forest, you can be charged, but not if you use nature itself as the bathroom. Picnicking on the ground has to be free under the law, but eating at a picnic table could, at least theoretically, cost you, as could using a trash can.
The way the law was drafted, it’s all about whether forest visitors are using “developed” facilities. But as the examples above show, that’s a ludicrous distinction that is impossible to enforce, out of line with the procedures at most wilderness parks and ultimately harmful to the forests and their visitors.
Most national and state parks and many regional parks charge an entry fee for vehicles whether they’re headed to the trail or the interpretive center, understanding full well that hikers’ and bikers’ activities come with costs even if they don’t use the “developed” facilities. Most hikers require trail markers to guide them on their way. The heavily used trails themselves must be maintained. Anyone might need emergency rescue or medical help from rangers. And for that matter, why shouldn’t a parking lot be considered a developed facility?
One argument against fees is that they keep poor people from enjoying the forests. But at $30 a year, a forest Adventure Pass is one of the best bargains in Southern California. It’s less than a fourth the price of an annual pass to state parks and is good for unlimited day use of four forests — the Angeles, Cleveland, San Bernardino and Los Padres. A single-day pass to the forests costs $5 for a carload of visitors, less than half the price of most movie tickets for a single person. The gasoline to drive to the forest would generally cost more.
Most of the money is used in the local forests where it is collected. In 2006 alone, the fees paid for, among many items, adding 74 new portable bathrooms, refurbishing 123 picnic areas and removing 8,752 cubic yards of trash in the Southern California forests. But as a result of the law and the recent court ruling, the U.S. Forest Service is now planning to drop fees in many areas of the forests. Instead, the law should be changed to reflect the realities of modern recreational use.

Help Wanted!: FS Recreation Funding

by
Hwy. 2 sunset facing south in the Angeles National Forest.

What I like about this post is that it acknowledges that there’s a problem if the FS can’t charge fees and doesn’t get funding from Congress.

Our ire at the Forest Service has nothing to do with whether or not the government agency is properly funded. For decades now, in fact, it has been severely underfunded. We don’t object to creative ways to get it more money to protect our wildlands. In fact, we would wager that many if not most avid hikers, backpackers, car campers, fishers, hunters and other forest users would be more than glad to pitch in with their charitable donations to keep their mountain, desert and other wild lands clean and safe – perhaps to a nonprofit organization specifically set up for that purpose.
Put a donation booth at every trail head with a smiling volunteer and watch the money roll in – voluntarily.

I think the FS already has many donation booths at trailheads.. does anyone know of studies or data ata on how much money people donate?

The idea of a not for profit is interesting.. what are people thinking the not-for-profit would do that the FS couldn’t do..keep the funds for local improvements? General mistrust of the FS? I’m hoping people can point NCFP readers to what is known about this topic. Everyplace I know recreation is important and faces shortfalls; don’t we communally need to work on some solutions?

Or could the partners like the REI or the OIA (discussed under “roadless” in a previous post) to donate 5% of all of certain kinds of outdoor equipment to go to a recreation not-for-profit to benefit FS recreation? it seems like we have a) creative and brilliant minds around who recreate on the national forests and 2) lots of people using the forests, including 3) corporate entities and their associations; somehow that seems like it ought to translate into enough money to take care of our recreation sites.

Does anyone know of ideas that have been successful or that might be worth trying?

Here’s the whole piece:

Our View: Good riddance, Adventure Pass
Posted: 02/18/2012 06:15:20 AM PST

http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_19994719

WE’VE known it all along, and have been saying so since 1998. But sometimes it takes literally making a federal case out of an injustice in order to make common sense into law.
Speaking for a unanimous panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling this month in favor of four hikers who objected to paying a fee to visit an Arizona forest, Judge Robert Gettleman wrote: “Everyone is entitled to enter national forests without paying a cent.”
Of course we are. These federal lands are paid for by our tax dollars. (For that matter, we welcome into them foreign hiking and sightseeing buffs who don’t pay American taxes at all. Good PR for America’s great outdoors.) The absurdly concocted Adventure Passes all but a few protesting conscientious objectors have been forced to pay these past 14 years are nothing more than a case of double taxation that never should have been cooked up in the first place.
Technically, if you even pulled your vehicle over to the side of the road on Highway 2 through our Angeles National Forest and took a stroll to a lookout point, you had to fork over $5 for the privilege – or $30 for an annual “pass.”
We already have that right. It’s not something you can extort money from us to do. This ruling clearly marks the end of the Adventure Pass once and for all.
Even so, the curmudgeonly local Forest Service isn’t ready to, as it were, buy in.
“I don’t have anything officially on that at this time,” said Sherry Rollman, spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service in Arcadia.
“It happened in another state and we haven’t assessed it yet.”
What planet is the USFS living on? This isn’t a state matter. It’s not the California Forest Service. Its workers are federal employees, and this ruling was made by a federal judge. We’re one big country, and a happier one for the ruling that we have a right to walk on our own land without being nickled and dimed in order to do so.
Our ire at the Forest Service has nothing to do with whether or not the government agency is properly funded. For decades now, in fact, it has been severely underfunded. We don’t object to creative ways to get it more money to protect our wildlands. In fact, we would wager that many if not most avid hikers, backpackers, car campers, fishers, hunters and other forest users would be more than glad to pitch in with their charitable donations to keep their mountain, desert and other wild lands clean and safe – perhaps to a nonprofit organization specifically set up for that purpose.
Put a donation booth at every trail head with a smiling volunteer and watch the money roll in – voluntarily.
The 9th Circuit ruling hedges a bit. Those who go to a place in the forest with “a majority of the nine amenities” offered in developed areas such as picnic tables, permanent toilets, garbage cans and running water, may be charged, the court said.
We’re not sure about that logic, and not sure how such uses can be quantified. But we’ll take the present ruling and run with it – and perambulate, cycle, swim and more through the lands that are owned by us all together.

Recreation – Sheepdog Safety

by
Akbash, a livestock protection dog used in the San Juan National Forest, has caused a stir among some trail users near Molas Pass. Here, Akbash belonging to Shane Nicolas herd sheep in the summer of 2010 in the Uncompahgre National Forest near Lake City.

In the interests of safety, I am posting this. I don’t know if this is the only part of the country where this is an issue. From the Durango Herald.

A simple solution to sheepdog encounters?
Education campaign planned to reduce high-country conflicts

Officials are betting that unnerving encounters with dogs guarding sheep in the high country could be reduced or eliminated through a public-education program to occur before flocks head for the hills in July.

Problem dogs in backcountry?

The plan emerged from a meeting this week involving the La Plata County Living With Wildlife Advisory Board and representatives of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, the agencies that oversee livestock grazing on public land.

“I was impressed with the presentation of the agencies as well as the heartfelt and knowledgeable response of our board members,” Maureen Keilty, chairwoman of the wildlife board, said Wednesday. “I think we have a good focus and that our plan can be a model for public education.”

Among the elements of the informational plan:

A booth at the Durango Farmers Market where volunteers would explain the history of livestock grazing, the inherent nature and training of sheepdogs, and suggested trail etiquette on the part of hikers and mountain bikers.

A public forum at which stakeholders would give their point of view. The composition of the panel isn’t set but could include a rancher, a Forest Service or BLM representative, an advocate for wildlife and someone to speak for the trail-using public.

Informational signs at trailheads alerting visitors that dog-guarded sheep are grazing in the area. The signs were posted for the first time in 2011.

Maps at visitor centers, chambers of commerce and on BLM and Forest Service websites showing current locations of sheep, which are moved from one location to another.

Matt Janowiak, the Columbine District ranger for the Forest Service; Tom Rice, field manager at the BLM Tres Rios office in Dolores; and Ann Bond, Forest Service public information specialist in Durango, were at the meeting Tuesday.

Several run-ins with sheepdogs along the Colorado Trail around Silverton last summer prompted letters to newspapers recounting scary experiences, personal or retold, with guard dogs.

Several breeds of Turkish dogs, bred for centuries to protect sheep, are used by the six holders of sheep-grazing permits in the San Juan National Forest. The Akbash was the breed involved in the incidents.

Sheepdogs, including the Akbash, bond with their band by nature and don’t turn tail in the face of a threat. No one was bitten last summer.

Janowiak and Elena Cuevas, a member of the wildlife advisory board, who are familiar with the Akbash, said the breed isn’t vicious by nature. But sheepdogs have to be socialized as pups. Familiarity with people, other breeds of canines, farm animals and ranch equipment train them to distinguish a friend from a foe when guarding their flock.

Janowiak related how a rancher from Montrose who grazes sheep around Silverton removed and eventually put down an aggressive sheepdog. Since then, he’s used socialized dogs, and there’s been no problems, Janowiak said.

The BLM and Forest Service provide grazing allotments at several locations near Silverton, including Highland Mary Lakes, Whitehead Gulch, Velocity Basin and Grouse Gulch.

It was brought out at the Tuesday meeting that people who take dogs on federal land must have the pet under voice control or on a leash although there is no leash law.

The expanses where sheep graze in the national forest have no trails for motorized vehicles. But there are Forest Service or county roads that sheep cross from time to time.

Controlling predators with sheepdogs will resolve at least two issues of contention, Keilty said.

Dogs provide a nonlethal method to protect livestock in contrast to the U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS Wildlife Service, which uses hunters to kill predators, Keilty said. Relying on dogs puts responsibility on ranchers, involves no taxpayer money and should find favor with animal lovers, she said.

APHIS stands for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The USDA service is expensive, costing county, state and federal funds, Keilty said. Ranchers also may be reimbursed for their losses.

The sheepdog solution also beats trapping and relocating predators, which rarely works, Keilty said.

Sunday Op-ed and Editorial Roundup from the Interior West

by

In today’s Sunday papers, The Denver Post and the Missoulian had three op-eds and an editorial of relevance to our usual topics. Ski Area Water Rights, 21st century conservation, private lands conservation and Tester’s bill. I lumped them together below and one separate in a separate post (restoration op-ed in the Missoulian), just to reduce my work here. Please feel free to comment on any or all of them.

One thing I thought was interesting was that in the Jon Christenson piece (third below), conservation easements protect the land from development by allowing the lands to be working for grazing, agriculture or timber. On federal lands, though, we were discussing if roadless is not adequately “protected” and only wilderness is really “protected” (albeit not from air pollution or climate change).

The recession presented land trusts with some great opportunities in recent years, as development stalled, and prime lands were available at distress-sale prices. But most of the growth has come through conservation easements, which are becoming ever more popular because they allow land trusts to protect land at an even lower price. “You pay 40 to 50 percent of the fee value of the land without any management costs,” explains Nita Vail, executive director of the rancher-led California Rangeland Trust. That’s because the landowners continue to own and manage their lands for grazing, agriculture, or timber.

These “working landscapes” — ranches, farms and timberlands — are now a priority for the majority of land trusts nationwide, according to the Land Trust Alliance survey.

Editorial- Denver Post #1

Editorial: The right to enjoy the land vs. ski resorts’ water rights
As water becomes increasingly scarce, it is important to bring clarity to the issue of who controls this resource at ski areas.
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By The Denver Post

The intensifying battle between the ski industry and the U.S. Forest Service over water rights is far more complicated and nuanced than it might seem at first glance.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing that the matter has landed in federal court so a judge can parse through the issues and apply the law fairly.

At the end of the day, we hope the rights of citizens to enjoy recreational opportunities on federal land are appropriately balanced against the financial interests of ski resorts.

We’ve heard a lot about ski industry contentions that new rules by the government amount to a “taking” of water rights they spent millions to acquire. The industry makes a compelling case.

Yet it’s important to keep in mind the government’s argument. The Forest Service says it is proposing regulations that clarify a 2004 change to ski permit conditions made during the Bush administration.

The government’s position is that water rights associated with ski areas should remain with the government even if the ownership of a resort or its business plans change.

An important point of disagreement between the ski areas and the government is this: Federal authorities contend the water rights at issue involve water that originates on federal land and didn’t have to be bought by the resorts. This rule doesn’t, they say, have anything to do with private rights bought by resorts.

That is to say, water from federal land that is permitted for use in snowmaking ought to remain with the property even if a ski resort were to be sold.

The National Ski Areas Association sees the water rights issue in a different light — one they construe as an effort to confiscate private property.

In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court, the industry group says the government is seeking control over water rights that ski areas obtain “from private lands or lands miles away from the ski area.”

These are vastly different interpretations of the proposed permit language that need to be resolved.

The federal courts are well-equipped to pull apart the complexities of water law and rule-making procedure. However, a better outcome would be a settlement.

We hope the parties can agree on a resolution of their differences over ski permit language without a protracted and costly legal battle.

Homes and businesses have sprouted up around ski runs built on federal land and people have come to expect access to these areas for alpine recreation. Those towns could be decimated by a decision that could allow water to be siphoned off for other uses.

As water becomes increasingly scarce, it is important to bring clarity to the issue of who controls this valuable resource at ski areas.

It would be a travesty if the future of the recreation that has so come to define Colorado were undercut by an unjust policy.

In my opinion, this lays out some of the basic principles and echoes my frequently stated “is litigation the best path?” question.

These two are about 21st century conservation (creativity needed!) on public and private lands:
Op-ed Denver Post #2

Guest Commentary: Conservation for today, and tomorrow
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Tim Sullivan

The start of a new year is a natural time to turn our thoughts to the future. However, for the conservation organizations, local governments and state agencies protecting Colorado’s most special natural resources, thinking about tomorrow is already ingrained in everything we do. Every project we undertake must not only have a tangible result today, but provide benefits to Coloradans far into the future.

This past year, we continued to find a balance between meeting people’s immediate needs and ensuring nature continues to benefit us all in the long run. The state of the economy, increasing population, demands for water and energy, and a changing climate will be among the many complicated factors we need to consider as we look ahead. To solve these issues, innovation will be crucial.

One example of conservation work paying benefits long into the future is the restoration of unhealthy forests. There is no short-term fix, but it’s a problem we must address or future generations will face more severe fires, insect and disease outbreaks, and threats to our homes and water supplies that we simply cannot afford. This summer will mark a decade since the massive Hayman Fire. When it comes to preventing the next mega-fire, an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure. Colorado hosts a number of promising collaborative efforts between citizens, conservation groups, local governments and the U.S. Forest Service. These efforts help set priorities and resolve potential conflicts, allowing critical forest restoration work to proceed today, with benefits to be realized for years to come.

While Colorado is best known for our forests and mountains, the grasslands covering the eastern part of the state are a remarkable piece of our heritage. This rolling prairie landscape is home to many longtime ranching families, provides food for our urban populations, and sustains globally significant wildlife.

A mix of economic realities can make it difficult for land to be shared or handed down to sons and daughters who want to carry on the tradition. This year, a remarkable partnership helped address this issue while permanently protecting vital grassland habitat.

When a large ranch east of Colorado Springs went on the market, several families holding adjacent property expressed interest. However, the cost made it impossible for just one family to purchase. Using conservation easements and monies from the lottery-funded Great Outdoors Colorado, an innovative financial model was born where the land was purchased and split between four families. The result was a win-win for wildlife and the local ranching community.

While it may seem natural for ranchers to pass on their conservation ethic to the next generation, children living in urban areas often have limited opportunities to connect to the natural world. Creating connections between youth, wherever they live, and the natural world is essential to the future of our state.

Environmental education, volunteer opportunities and youth internships with conservation organizations will serve as the catalyst to engage a future cadre of environmental leaders.

We still face many challenges to ensure our children, and theirs after them, will experience the same wonders we enjoy — the iconic places, amazing wildlife and abundant resources of Colorado. I believe we are up to the challenge and together can create a future where the lands and waters on which all life depends are protected.

Tim Sullivan is state director of The Nature Conservancy in Colorado.

This one’s also from High Country News
Op-ed Denver Post #3

opinion
Recession is aiding the conservation of Western lands
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Jon Christensen
High Country News

The Great Recession, it turns out, may have been good for one thing in the West: private land conservation. From the tiny Orient Land Trust in Colorado’s San Luis Valley, which has nearly doubled its holdings to 2,260 acres, to the 138,041 acres of ranchland protected by the California Rangeland Trust over the last five years, statewide and local land trusts in the West have done better than ever recently, even as many environmental advocacy groups continue to trim budgets and federal funding for conservation falters.

The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which agencies rely on to acquire valuable private lands, suffered a 38 percent cut and protected just over 500,000 acres over the last five years. During the same period, private nonprofit land trusts protected 20 times as much undeveloped land — 10 million acres nationwide, according to data in a new census of 1,700 land trusts in the national Land Trust Alliance.

Land trusts also grew in other ways, including a 19 percent increase in paid employees and contractors, a 36 percent increase in operating budgets, a 70 percent increase in volunteer numbers, and a near tripling of long-term endowments.

Land trusts protect land by either buying it outright or paying for a conservation easement, which restricts or removes the landowner’s right to develop open land. Landowners can also donate property and easements and then receive a break on their income taxes from the federal government and some state governments. The latest gains bring the total area protected by the nation’s land trusts to 47 million acres — more than twice the area covered by all of the national parks in the lower 48 states.

In fact, private land conservation is now shaping the future of much of the West as decisively as development. Land that is protected by conservation easements or bought by land trusts is legally required to be protected in perpetuity. And in recent years, local land trusts have been “saving more land than is lost to development,” says Rand Wentworth, president of the Washington, D.C.- based Land Trust Alliance. That pattern was apparent in the alliance’s last census five years ago, when new conservation barely edged out new development nationwide and in the West. It became much more dramatic during the recession, as new housing construction crashed and conservation efforts in most states continued to grow.

This trend is particularly strong in the Western states, where statewide and local land trusts conserved 2.6 million acres between 2005 and 2010, 30 percent more than they did from 2000 to 2005. These trends put California, Colorado and Montana among the top five states nationwide in total private land conserved. Arizona, Nevada and Wyoming made large gains compared to the previous period. And in Colorado, Montana and Wyoming, so much more rural land is now being conserved than is being developed that it seems that much of their open land will likely remain undeveloped.

The recession presented land trusts with some great opportunities in recent years, as development stalled, and prime lands were available at distress-sale prices. But most of the growth has come through conservation easements, which are becoming ever more popular because they allow land trusts to protect land at an even lower price. “You pay 40 to 50 percent of the fee value of the land without any management costs,” explains Nita Vail, executive director of the rancher-led California Rangeland Trust. That’s because the landowners continue to own and manage their lands for grazing, agriculture, or timber.

These “working landscapes” — ranches, farms and timberlands — are now a priority for the majority of land trusts nationwide, according to the Land Trust Alliance survey.

Whether the blazing growth of private conservation in the West will continue unabated is unclear, though. The recession may yet have lagging effects. Like her colleagues around the country, Vail worries about the loss of generous tax incentives for conservation easement donations, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to renew them.

Jon Christensen is executive director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford University and wrote this for High Country News (hcn.org, where a longer version can be found). Also contributing were Jenny Rempel and Judee Burr, researchers at the center.

Finally this editorial from the Missoulian on the Tester bill.

Editorial Missoulian #4

Middle ground on forest bill

Posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:00 am

It’s the beginning of a big election year, and the national spotlight is already shining on one of Montana’s U.S. Senate seats. Will Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester be ousted by Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg? We’ll find out in November.

In the meantime, many Montanans are justifiably concerned that the next 10 months will be hopelessly politicized, with two of the state’s three congressional delegates tied up in campaign-caused gridlock.

In meetings with the Missoulian editorial board earlier this month, both Rehberg and Tester provided assurances that they will not allow that to happen. Both candidates pledged to remain focused on their jobs in Congress. And both declared that no amount of campaign politics would prevent them from working together to do what’s right for Montana.

In fact, during his meeting with the Missoulian, Rehberg mapped out a road to compromise with Tester on one of their biggest sticking points: the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

Tester first introduced the act in July 2009 at the urging of a diverse coalition of timber interests and environmental groups, and has made several running attempts to push the bill forward in Congress. The bill, which links aspects of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership, the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Project and the Three Rivers Challenge, is aimed at both designating new wilderness in Montana and setting logging mandates for the U.S. Forest Service.

Both Tester, a first-term senator, and Rehberg, a four-term congressman, have held multiple public meetings in communities across Montana to gather opinions on the proposal.

Those meetings resulted in several ideas that could be – and should be – used to improve the bill, Rehberg explained. One of them, he said, is the phase-in proposal he first began advocating for nearly a year ago. That measure would require that a treatment threshold for a set number of forest acres – say, 10 percent of the total outlined in the bill – be achieved before new wilderness and recreation areas could be designated.

Requiring logging or thinning triggers to be met before releasing new wilderness would help ensure that the bill actually does what it is aimed at doing – creating jobs, Rehberg said. As it stands, “there’s no such thing as a mandate for jobs in that bill,” he told the Missoulian.

While Tester has not been receptive to the phase-in suggestion – his spokesman has said previously that it would have no chance of gaining congressional approval – Rehberg invited Tester to take a second look at including the phase-in, and offered that he could “work with (Tester’s) bill if he can get something through the Senate and I can have this phase-in.”

Jobs are certainly a top priority in the nation and in Montana right now. Western Montana’s economy could use the boost this act would provide. While eastern Montana has been buoyed by the ongoing oil boom, western Montana has watched one mill after another shutter – including two in Missoula that once employed hundreds of workers.

We hold no illusions that incorporating a phase-in plan will resolve every one of Rehberg’s concerns with the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. But it’s a place to start – a hand reached across the aisle at a time when Montanans desperately need our elected officials to pass legislation that provides real economic progress.

From the beginning, the proposals that ultimately became the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act were marked by compromise. They brought people with very different and often opposing interests to the same table to reach an agreement on what’s best for all.

It would be wonderful, and a wonderful reflection on Montana, if our junior senator and sole congressman were able to bring this same spirit of cooperation to Congress.

EDITORIAL BOARD: Publisher Jim McGowan, Editor Sherry Devlin, Opinion Editor Tyler Christensen

21st Century Problems- ” Loving It Without Loving it to Death”- Gallatin Crest

by

We’ve heard this mantra in many places when the different recreationists seek to have land managed for their varying methods of recreation. It seems to me if place-based decisions worked out by locals are the best way to proceed- but I’d be interested in hearing other points of view. The comments are also interesting. In the rhetoric around the 2001 Roadless Rule, land needed to be “protected”. Now we find that some believe that that is not “protected enough”- motorized and mechanized need to be “outta there.” Also note the reference to one of our favorite topics.. litigation.

Here’s the link to the story in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

The next steps for the Gallatin Crest

CARLY FLANDRO, Chronicle Staff Writer | Posted: Sunday, January 8, 2012 12:15 am

Windy Pass in the Gallatin Range is a place of spectacular beauty.

Trying to explain it, Roger Jenkins recently recalled the opening scene of “The Sound of Music,” when Julie Andrews twirls in a grassy mountain meadow singing “The Hills are Alive.”

“That’s how you feel when you’re standing there,” he said.

Jenkins is president of the Madison Gallatin Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association and an avid hiker and skier. He believes that a unique tract of land stretching from Yellowstone National Park toward Bozeman – which includes Windy Pass – should be protected and designated as wilderness. That would mean no motorized or mechanized uses would be allowed there.

Kerry White, on the other hand, has been snowmobiling in that same area since the 1960s. He remembers snowmobiling there with his grandfather and father, and wants to make sure he can share those same experiences with his children and grandchildren.

“These areas are precious,” said White, president of Citizens for Balanced Use, a coalition of motorized and mechanized recreationists. “On top of Eaglehead Mountain on a clear day you can see the Grand Tetons 100 miles away. It is spectacular.”

The Gallatin Crest is a special place that people can visit after the work week to “get back that momentum of life” and “recuperate from the everyday grind of traffic and noise,” White said.

From his perspective, designating the land as wilderness would mean locking it up in perpetuity and taking away opportunities for future generations.

The land in question is known as the Gallatin Crest, officially the Hyalite Porcupine Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area. It was set aside in 1977 to be considered for wilderness designation by Congress. Legislators, though, still have not decided what to do with the land, and in the meantime, arguments over the area’s future have gone on for more than 30 years.

A recent court ruling has sparked debate again, and area residents are talking about what to do next. Most think stakeholders should work together to come up with a consensus plan, then present it to legislators in the hopes of encouraging them to act.
Litigation and the recent ruling

In 2002, the Gallatin National Forest began preparing a travel plan after realizing that “the demand for some recreation opportunities” in the forest might “be reaching the point of exceeding the capability of the land to provide them,” according to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals documents.

Finalized in 2006, the travel plan restricted the number of trails in the WSA that could be used by motorcycles and mountain bikes. Those changes were made to help the study area retain its 1977 wilderness character — as required by law — until Congress decides whether to designate it.

Environmental groups, including the Montana Wilderness Association, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Wilderness Society, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service, essentially alleging that motorized and mechanized use would still be too great under the new travel plan.

Citizens for Balanced Use and another group of motorized users filed a separate lawsuit, alleging the opposite: that the travel plan unlawfully restricted motorized use in the study area.

A district court ruled that the Forest Service didn’t take into account the increased volume of motorized and mechanized users when making its plan. That decision was appealed, and on Dec. 1, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling.

“We hold that the travel plan improperly ignores the impact of increased volume of motorized and mechanized use on current users’ ability to seek quiet and solitude in the study area,” the ruling said. “Because the Service entirely failed to consider this important aspect of its duty to maintain the study area’s 1977 wilderness character, its decision is arbitrary and capricious.”

So what does that mean for the future of the Gallatin Crest? The answer to that is still being figured out.

The ball is in the Gallatin National Forest’s court

The Gallatin National Forest is responsible for acting on the ruling.

“It may take some time for us to fully digest this ruling and determine an appropriate course of action,” Mary Erickson, Custer and Gallatin Forest supervisor, said in a Dec. 5 statement.

In the meantime, GNF announced that an interim winter plan to manage the WSA would remain in effect. That plan constrains snowmobile use in the WSA to the Big Sky Snowmobile Trail and an open area for cross country snowmobile travel near Golden Trout Lakes.

In a recent interview, Marna Daley, spokeswoman for Gallatin National Forest, said the Forest Service is still grappling with what to do next.

“The real issue is about the opportunity for solitude,” she said.

And solitude is not just affected by the extent or distribution of snowmobiles, motorcycles or mountain bikes, but also by their volume. Deciding what volume is appropriate will be a challenge, as the Forest Service does not have data about volume levels in 1977.

“We’re trying to determine the best way to move forward from here,” Daley said. “We’re trying to find a strategy that is going to result in a management configuration that people can get behind and at least support — maybe not embrace but at least support.”

Ideally, a user-based solution could be found, she said. Additional analyses of the WSA and its opportunities for solitude could also be done.

When asked whether the Forest Service would finance a mediator to help stakeholders reach a consensus, Daley said it would consider that if there were a likelihood of success.

“We certainly don’t have funds to just sink into a process that may not have an outcome,” she said.

She added that the Forest Service is striving to find a solution that will break the cycle of “never-ending litigation.” The Gallatin National Forest hopes to identify the next steps it will take by early February.

While it considers its options, the Forest Service is also dealing with an approximately $170,000 bill for the conservation groups’ litigation costs. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, federal government entities must pay for the opposing sides’ litigation costs if the opposition prevails in court.

Daley said the bill amounts to 15 percent of the agency’ fiscal year 2012 recreation budget and could impact the amount of trail and road maintenance the Forest Service conducts and whether it can hire as many seasonal employees.

“It’s a significant amount,” she said. “We’ve somehow got to make that up.”

However the Forest Service responds to the 9th Circuit ruling, its actions might trigger continued litigation. Another solution to the problem, though, would be congressional action.

Many stakeholders favor a collaborative effort to produce a plan for the WSA that all could support. That plan could then be presented to legislators and would perhaps encourage them to finally make a decision on whether the WSA should be a wilderness area.
Stakeholders

Ben Donatelle works at a local bike shop and is coordinator for the Wilderness and Recreation Partnership, an organization focused on protecting the WSA while working to improve trails and access outside its boundaries.

He would support a wilderness designation, though it means mountain bikers could not ride on any of its trails.

“There are a thousand miles of other trails,” he said.

He believes one of the greatest reasons for protecting the area is because it serves as critically important habitat and a corridor for wildlife, such as wolverines and grizzly bears.

“I want to have places out there that exist that are pristine, untouched, untracked and, like the wilderness act says, untrammeled by man,” he said. “If everybody went wherever they wanted, will-nilly, we wouldn’t have those wild places. And its been proven time and time again that the public is in favor of that.”

He hopes that the recent ruling serves as a catalyst for the community to come together and take a hard look at why it cares about this place and how it wants it to be managed in the future.

“The common thread is that we all love to get out into wild places and into nature and do what we love to do,” he said. “We should have the foresight to protect some of those places for things that are greater than ourselves.”

Steve Gehman, wildlife biologist and program director for the nonprofit Wild Things Unlimited, said the WSA is important to many rare and sensitive species. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be wilderness in order to maintain the wildlife, he said, but it would add another level of protection for the animals.

Patti Steinmuller, a hiker and skier from Gallatin Gateway, said she thinks community meetings or focus groups are the key to resolving this issue.

“I don’t think congressional action is likely without a broad network of support from the community,” she said. “(We need) a real Montana-based, locally crafted plan that works for everyone.”

White with Citizens for Balanced Use believes there should be more access for motorized uses. Places to snowmobile within the WSA are limited, and in the greater Gallatin National Forest, snowmobilers can travel only in open areas without trees or cliffs.

CBU board member Brad Grein said that the areas snowmobilers do have left have become so crowded that the rewarding experiences of snowmobiling, such as finding untracked snow, have been diminished.

“What CBU is looking for is a fair and balanced approach,” White said. “We don’t see that balance and fairness coming out of the (Forest Service) or being supported by environmental groups. Those folks want it all”

CBU is supporting a bill sponsored by a California legislator known as the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011. It would release WSAs across the country from continued management as de facto wilderness areas.

Some conservationists make the point that if the WSA near Bozeman were not designated as wilderness, it could be subject to natural resource development that could deprive it of its unique qualities.

White believes there are no development opportunities in that area.

“The terrain is prohibitive in that way,” he said. “There’s no chance that (development) would occur. That’s a pipe dream for those guys to even make that argument.”

“We’re going to continue to fight,” he said. “We are not going to stand for losing it all.”

But White said CBU would be open to efforts to work together for a solution.

“All stakeholders need to be engaged,” he said.

Jenkins said the California bill indicates that there’s pressure to resolve these issues. He sees it as a great opportunity for stakeholders to start talking.

“Wilderness and designating wilderness is not about use, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about an outdoor gymnasium. It’s about protecting the landscape,” Jenkins said. “It’s not just all about me, it’s about the future generation, the grandchildren and great grandchildren here today.”

The many stakeholders involved with this issue have diverse perspectives, but Jenkins noted there is common ground.

“All the people talking about this range love it,” he said. “But we’ve got to find a way we can love it without loving it to death.”

If you’re curious about how much wilderness there is already in the vicinity, you can check this handy application (I clicked on Montana,scrolled down to that part of Montana, and clicked off the check for “names” to see clearly), supported by many agencies including the FS and the University of Montana. Remember it shows wildernesses and not Yellowstone Park, parts of which are managed in a wilderness like way (no motorized or mechanized, etc.).

Needed: BLM and FS Lobbying Organization? “National Reserve Conservation Association”

by

Last week I was in DC and got a chance to ask some knowledgeable folks about the spate of “forests to parks” that have been proposed recently and discussed on this blog.

My personal opinion: I’d like all public land managers to have the funding to protect resources and to manage public use as appropriate. It would be fine with me if all the feds were all one agency and shared zoning of what’s OK and not OK to do in a certain place (say “blue” meant OHV’s OK, but no oil and gas). I just think time and funds spent switching agency ownerships on individual chunks of land could probably be spent better clarifying the issues of concern, and looking for areas where the land management agencies are inefficient or duplicate each others’ actions. I know that there are many obstacles to some kind of major change (one agency for all public lands), but even an effort to harmonize regulations would be a step in the right direction. See, for example, this piece in HCN (assuming that the statements are accurate). Here’sthe entire piece from HCN.

According to putatively knowledgeable sources, there were some efforts in the past, which led to an agreement between the Secretaries of Interior and Ag about “no poaching.” I’d appreciate more information on this history from readers if any of you are familiar with it.

Meanwhile the existence of the National Parks Conservation Association (website here) perhaps in and of itself, leads to the concept that “parks are better.”

Here is the information from their website on how and why that group was founded.

NPCA was established in 1919, just three years after the National Park Service. Stephen Mather, the first director of the Park Service, was one of our founders. He felt very strongly that the national parks would need an independent voice—outside the political system—to ensure these places remained unimpaired for future generations. Now, nearly one hundred years later, NPCA has more than 600,000 members and supporters.

Now, my current hypothesis is that if Parks has an independent group that lobbies for Parks, and if FS and BLM don’t have independent groups that lobby for them (we’ll call a new hypothetical group the National Reserve Conservation Association for now (other titles invited)), we would expect that Parks would get more money and attention to change land from BLM and FS to Parks. I like the term “Reserves” because it implies that the land has been reserved for some purpose. This is true of what NPS calls “reserves,” whose management sometimes allows a variety of preexisting uses, including OHV’s (see photo above).

Perhaps the solution is simply to start a lobbying group to balance the effects of NCPA, and to make sure that the taxpayer gets the best deal from the overall portfolio of public lands.

Last week, when news broke that much of West Virginia’s northern Allegheny Highlands might be considered for national park and preserve status, sportsmen raised a ton of questions:

How big would the park be? Would hunting be outlawed? Would trout stockings be curtailed? Who would manage the fish and wildlife? And what would become of trapping, ramp digging and ginseng hunting?

We have answers now for at least some of those questions. Earlier this week, I spoke with Judy Rodd, a spokeswoman for Friends of High Allegheny National Park and Preserve, who clarified some of the murkier points.

The preserve, as currently envisioned, would be pretty darned big – roughly 750,000 acres.

Rodd said it would start at Cathedral State Park in Preston County and extend southward to Cass in Pocahontas County. Its western boundary would start at Shavers Mountain near Elkins and would extend eastward to include current units of the George Washington National Forest in Hardy and Hampshire counties.

“All the lands that would be included in the preserve would be lands that are current state parks or are part of the Monongahela and George Washington national forests,” Rodd explained. “No private lands would need to be purchased.”

She added that only a portion of the land would be considered a full-fledged national park.

“The main units of the national park portion would include Cathedral, Blackwater Falls and Canaan Valley state parks, and some portion of the Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area,” she said.

“The Park Service folks have said units of the park could be spread apart like that. The rest of the land in the Allegheny Highlands – the vast majority of the land under consideration – would be in preserve status, where hunting and fishing would be encouraged.”

Rodd said she wasn’t sure if the Park Service would allow trapping on the preserve. However, a subsequent Internet search of several preserves’ websites showed that trapping is allowed on most of them.

The question of ginseng hunting caught Rodd by surprise; she said she “would have to talk the Park Service about that.” As to ramp digging, she harbored a rather strong opinion: “I dig them too, so naturally I would want [that] to be allowed.”

One of the more ticklish questions surrounding the preserve concept would be whether the state Division of Natural Resources or the National Park Service would have primary control of fishing-related issues.

In the New River Gorge National River, for example, DNR officials manage fisheries as they see fit. One sticking point has arisen, though. Park Service officials several years ago asked that non-native fish – rainbow and brown trout, specifically – not be stocked within the park’s boundaries. Stockings continue to this day.

In the state’s mountain highlands, trout fishing is a big issue. Most of the state’s most popular stocked-trout streams and rivers are in the preserve area, and most of the fish stocked are rainbows and browns. Rodd said she didn’t know whether DNR or Park Service policies would prevail.

“That’s too technical an issue for me,” she said.

Rodd said provisions to address any or all of sportsmen’s concerns could be written into legislation that would establish the park.

“That’s a long way off, though,” she said. “The [upcoming] study is called a reconnaissance study. If it finds that the area is unique enough to be included in the national park system, a resource study would follow. And then there would be a period of time to write the legislation and get it passed. Park and preserve status is still years away.”

Loving the land to death? A 21st Century Problem

by
Summertime visitors dot the shores of Maroon Lake

Pressure mounts on forests as recreation groups demand their piece of the woods
From the Aspen Times here.

Editor’s note: Today’s third installment of the five-part Aspen Times series, “Land of Opportunity,” focuses on how the U.S. Forest Service manages the White River National Forest which, in many ways, serves as the area’s economic driver. The fourth part, set for Monday, Dec. 19, takes a look at the state of ranching and logging in the Roaring Fork Valley.

When it comes to recreation in the White River National Forest, everybody wants a piece of the woods.

There were 144 outfitters and guides operating in the forest in 2010. They did everything from leading hunters into the backcountry by horseback to hauling bicyclists by van to Maroon Lake so they could coast down the paved road.

Skiers and snowboard riders use public lands at 11 ski areas forest-wide.

Hikers and backpackers have 2,500 miles of trails at their disposal and there are 751,900 acres of wilderness, where motorized and mechanized uses are prohibited.

Mountain bikers are always looking for new opportunities, occasionally building bandit trails then trying to legalize them later.

Dirt bikers and other off-road vehicle enthusiasts clamor for more terrain where they can operate machines capable of covering more than 100 miles on a good day of trail riding.

Snowmobilers, rock climbers, big peak baggers, paragliders, anglers, trail runners, backcountry skiers, picnickers, sightseers, nature lovers — everybody wants to spend time in the forest.

The result is about 9.2 million visits annually from people pursuing recreation in the White River National Forest — more than Grand Canyon and Yosemite national parks combined. Throw skiing out of the mix and you still get more than 2 million visits to the White River. Many of those visitors want to go to the same spectacular places at the same time of the summer.

“We’ve reached a point of saturation in some areas,” acknowledged Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams. “There are times you go to the Maroon Bells wilderness and you run into hundreds and hundreds of people.”

The age of industrial tourism
Valley native Tony Vagneur has witnessed the surge in tourism in the forests surrounding the Roaring Fork Valley over the last five decades. When he was a kid growing up in Woody Creek his family would run 1,200 cows and calves onto 30,000 acres in the Kobey Park area above Lenado. The cows had the place nearly to themselves — no off-road vehicles, no mountain bikes, only occasional hikers and hunters.

It was even possible to find solitude on visits to scenic backcountry lakes.

“I clearly remember in 1965 or ‘66, my great uncle Tom Stapleton and I went deer hunting at Maroon Lake,” Vagneur recalled. It was October and the fall colors were in full splendor. Nevertheless, they were the only people there, he said. They actually hunted right around the lake.

Visit Maroon Lake on a sunny October day these days and you will be sharing the views with hundreds of other sightseers. Maroon Lake has fallen victim to what the late Edward Abbey labeled industrial tourism. Like many national parks, the Maroon Bells Recreation Area is so popular that access is restricted during the heart of summer and bus service is required to move the masses.

Vagneur also hiked one recent summer to Capitol Lake, a place he had visited several times before and often found a fair degree of solitude. On the latest trip, he found 13 occupied campsites around the stunning, high-altitude lake.

“You might as well be camping out in Paepcke Park,” he said.

The lake is a popular destination for climbers tackling Capitol Peak, which looms over the lake. As bagging 14ers — the peaks in Colorado that exceed 14,000 feet in elevation — has grown more popular, so has the pressure on the backcountry surrounding those peaks.

Changing trends
Martha Moran, recreation staff officer for the Aspen and Sopris Districts, has watched backcountry and wilderness use patterns evolve for more than a decade since she joined the office. Among her observations: Hunting in the Aspen area has declined significantly; forest visitors are taking shorter-duration trips; and people are willing to sacrifice solitude to visit the most scenic areas.

It seems that travelers stick around more for long weekends rather than week-long trips, Moran said, so they are determined to see hotspots like the Maroon Bells on their brief outing, regardless of crowds. That concentrates more visitors into fewer sites.

“People are attached to special areas,” Moran said. “They aren’t going to the deep, dark woods.”

When they do venture further into the backcountry, it tends to be concentrated on routes made popular by coverage in magazines like Backpacker, Outside and National Geographic Traveler, Moran noted. The Four Pass Loop — which makes an incredible 26-mile journey over Buckskin, Trail Rider, Frigid Air and West Maroon passes — offers unparalleled beauty, but it’s tough to avoid crowds in July and August.

To some degree, the cash-starved Forest Service is addicted to industrial tourism. While most areas in the forest can be visited without paying a fee, the agency still capitalizes on payments for recreational uses. It collected $372,840 in 2010 from fees charged to outfitters and guides, educational institutions and organizers of special events, such as a backcountry marathon.

In addition, the fees charged at Maroon Bells, Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area, Green Mountain Reservoir and the handful of campgrounds that it still operates totaled $607,611 last year.

The agency also reaps fees from the 11 ski areas with special-use permits. Aspen Skiing Co., for example, paid nearly $1.4 million last season to lease public lands for its four ski areas.

The greater the number of outfitters and guides, the greater the number of visitors to the Maroon Bells and the greater number of skier and snowboard riders, the more money the Forest Service collects.

Many of those funds are plowed back into forest projects or are used to hire staff such as backcountry rangers, but some of the funds simply vanish into the U.S. Treasury.

Feds use management tools
The Forest Service is adapting to the recreation explosion. Researchers for the agency have found little public support for limiting the number of hikers on trails or visitors to certain areas to ease the crush of crowds. But forest lovers will support limits designed to protect the ecosystem, according to the agency’s research.

The White River National Forest uses various management tools to ease the human impact:

• Permits used to be issued to outfitter and guide with few questions asked. Now the agency performs a capacity analysis on every proposal to determine if there is a need for additional permits. Special event requests using forest lands also get thorough scrutiny.

• The Travel Management Plan released last summer closed 692 miles of bandit trails, constructed or used illegally, and decommissioned another 519 miles of routes from the White River National Forest’s official inventory. In many cases, the agency couldn’t afford to maintain all those routes, Fitzwilliams said.

• Wilderness designation prohibits motorized uses, such as Jeeps and dirt bikes, as well as mechanized uses, such as mountain bikes. Trails outside of wilderness often have restrictions.

• Other rules have been in place for decades to prevent us from loving our special places to death. Camps must be a certain distance away from high-country lakes. Wilderness rangers vigorously enforce the rules at the most heavily visited areas such as Snowmass Lake, Fryingpan Lakes and Crater Lake. The Aspen Ranger District recently beefed up restrictions at Conundrum Hot Spring, placing limits on the camps near the springs and prohibiting dogs from the upper valley.

Nevertheless, the special places still get overwhelmed. West Maroon Pass on a weekend in July and August resembles the pilgrimage route to Mecca.

In other, less pristine areas, the experience is different. It remains much as it was decades ago. Vagneur likes visiting the Hunter-Fryingpan wilderness, north of Aspen and up the Fryingpan Valley. “If you go in there a day [of travel on foot or horseback], you can be the only person there,” he said.

Vagneur is a volunteer with the Forest Service. During big game hunting seasons, he often roams the hills above Lenado on horseback to visit hunters’ camps. He answers a lot of questions and tactfully offers advice, like urging hunters to haul out trash. He had made the rounds for 15 straight years until taking a break this year.

“The numbers have gone down since ‘08, the recession year,” he said. Even before that, the numbers of hunters were in decline.

Part of the problem is user conflicts, as Vagneur sees it. Dirt bikers have turned the Kobey Park and Sloan’s Peak area into a near exclusive playground. Their sheer numbers overwhelm hikers and equestrians. The result is all the trails have been rutted down about three feet, forcing dirt bikers to make new trails alongside the old ones.

“The dirt bikes have just totally trashed the area,” Vagneur said. “You can’t walk on any of the trails up there.”

Conflicts can’t be helped
But dirt bikers are also feeling squeezed in the White River. The Forest Service is funneling them into fewer areas even though it is a growing endeavor. That creates high concentrations that can lead to trail damage.

Dirt biker Traci Schalow of Carbondale understands the frustration some users feel while about having the share the forest, but feels most people are understanding and cooperative with one another.

“I am the multi-user,” she said. “I like backcountry skiing. That is my thing.”

The explosion of extreme sports has lead to more people in the backcountry, Schalow said. She no longer ventures to Marble Peak, a popular backcountry ski area. “You can’t even find parking anymore,” she said.

Schalow feels that dirt bikers get a bad rap as people who don’t care about the environment. She is trying to do something about that (see related story). She said many riders enjoy the outdoors for the same reasons as mountain bikers and hikers.

“I find joy in the backcountry whether it’s skiing in the winter or dirt riding in the other seasons,” Schalow said. “Dirt bikes are a great mode for accessing wild places, especially areas that have distances prohibitive on foot or bicycle, unless you have several days to access it.”

She said there is a camaraderie in dirt biking that she hasn’t experienced in her other pursuits — mountain biking, trail running and backcountry skiing. “It’s a ‘we’ sport, more than any other sport I have participated in,” Schalow said.

Aspen Ranger District’s Moran said the White River National Forest probably experiences more users conflicts than forests closer to urban areas. The reason — so many passionate forest users. Dirt bikers want single-track trails while families want gentle backcountry roads to tour with their families. There are “flamboyant huckers” who use snowmobiles to get at powder-filled backcountry cliffs and there are cross-country skiers seeking solitude, according to Moran.

“It’s conflicts over access, really,” she said.

And that creates management headaches. Moran noted the “conundrum at Conundrum.” An environmental group called Wilderness Watch says the Aspen Ranger District’s recent limits on camping at Conundrum Hot Springs don’t go far enough to protect the area while some hot springs enthusiasts blast the agency for overreacting to alleged problems.

“There’s a lot of passion on how we manage our public lands,” Moran said.

The Forest Service has gone increasingly toward a “capacity limit” style of management. It examines the effects of human waste, user conflicts and quality of experience while contemplating rules.

“We’re trying to prepare for the next 70 years,” Moran said.

She personally feels that will force the Forest Service to sets limits on access to popular areas, at some point.

“I can visualize that’s where we’ll have to go eventually,” she said.

New policy lets ski resorts add warm-weather activities to Forest Service land

by

ZIP-LINE RIDES (Helen H. Richardson, Denver Post file)

Speaking of titles, the one in the Denver Post print edition this AM was “Toys of Summer.” Definitely more evocative than the one here on the web.

What is appropriate recreation on public lands used by ski resorts?

Skiing, snowboarding and skate skiing? Of course.

How about zipping through the forest canopy on a suspended cable? Racing in a running competition? Dancing at a concert? Barreling down elevated ramps on full-suspension mountain bikes? Pedaling singletrack through the aspens?

Under the 1986 National Forest Ski Area Permit Act, regional Forest Service chieftains had little direction when it came to approving and permitting such summertime activities at ski resorts, and most summer-oriented development was limited to private land at base areas.

That is about to change thanks to the new Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act, which
CONCERTS (Associated Press file)
was signed into law Nov. 7. The act amends the 1986 law by expanding potential recreational uses of federal land used by ski resorts.

“One thing we are really concerned about is staying relevant and in touch with the youth of America and changing demographics, and we think outdoor recreation is one of the key ways the Forest Service can interact with people these days,” said Jim Bedwell, the former forest supervisor of the Arapaho and Roosevelt national forests who now serves as the agency’s national director of recreation and heritage resources.

Bedwell has two years to sculpt a new policy that will serve as a blueprint for resort development but said his team will be ready to entertain resort proposals this winter. He expects to see things like zip lines, canopy walks, mountain-bike terrain parks and trails emerging in the already- developed areas of ski resorts. More pristine areas such as Vail’s back bowls will remain in their natural setting.

“We are going to concentrate heavy development within existing development,” said Bedwell, who expects to have a new policy intact within a year.

That policy, he said, will probably include a type of zoning that would corral development into a ski area’s more
ZIP-LINE RIDES (Helen H. Richardson, Denver Post file)
developed areas around chairlifts and base areas while protecting the less-developed areas of a ski area. And of course, Bedwell said, all development will be natural-resource-oriented and will “harmonize with the outdoor setting and natural environment.” So no Ferris wheels, water slides, golf courses, tennis courts or skateboard parks.

Geraldine Link , director of public policy for the National Ski Areas Association, said the nation’s 121 resorts on federal land will likely quickly pursue things such as zip lines and canopy tours.

“Then, in general, ski areas will begin investing more in summer facilities because this summertime question mark has been removed,” Link said. “This act means we won’t see turmoil or issues based
MOUNTAIN BIKING (Helen H. Richardson, Denver Post file)
on the appropriateness of summer activities. I think we are going to see resorts go full bore and try to create a critical mass they need for a successful summer program.”

Resorts will still need to follow the established process of submitting a master development plan to the Forest Service and assessing project impacts through federal environmental review.

“It should certainly help in the sense that it will give ‘programmatic’ direction to a wider array of summer uses on Forest Service land within the ski areas,” said Jim Stark, winter-sports administrator with the Aspen Ranger District who last April completed an environmental review of new summertime bike trails at the Snowmass ski area. “Overall, this should help the Forest Service be a little more consistent in how we look at proposals nationally.”