Recreation News

Join the NFRA Mailing List

Receive occasional updates on recreation news and NFRA events.  All we need is a name and email address:

Join Our Mailing List

Email:

Dangers Posed by Park and FS Employees?

Dangers posed by park employees

Tom Stienstra

Sunday, August 15, 2010

At a Bay Area park on the Peninsula, I rounded a bend on a service road on my mountain bike and suddenly encountered a pick-up truck barreling right at me. I barely dodged it.

Turned out it was driven by a ranger pal I've known for years. Chagrined, he offered a "sorry about that" - apology accepted, my friend - and said he was heading out to check on a report of an illegal campsite.

On another day, deep in national forest, I was driving to a remote lake on a narrow, bumpy dirt road, truckin' along in 4-wheel-drive at about 10 mph, rounded a bend and nearly got wiped out by a guy ripping straight at me from the other direction at about 35 mph. It was one of those green Forest Service pick-up trucks. A very close call. The driver didn't hang around to discuss the situation, blazing off in a cloud of dust.

Everybody I know has had the same thing happen. In parks and national forests, rangers, biologists and other employees are thinking about their work while they drive from Point A to Point B, and they can sometimes forget anybody else is out there. You end up with a near miss. Or worse.

That's all going to change. They're going to have to slow down and pay attention. Or they and the agency they work for will likely pay dearly when they hit somebody.

A California Supreme Court decision came down last month that ruled workers in parks and national forests, and the agencies that manage them, are liable for injuries caused by negligence such as poor driving.

The case is called Klein v. United States. According to court documents, Alan Klein was riding his mountain bike on a road in Angeles National Forest when a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, heading out to study endangered condors, was driving the other direction and hit him head-on. Klein sustained catastrophic injuries, according to his attorney, David Jones.

Jones told me that when he first brought the case, the U.S. government denied any responsibility for the accident and said Klein had no right to bring the case.

The state Supreme Court ruled otherwise. "Now we start the case over," Jones said.

"This kind of thing happens all the time," Jones said. Rangers and employees "have to keep an eye open, driving through the parks."

In a more formal statement, Jones said: "This decision will certainly ensure that the millions of people who love the outdoors and the adventure that it provides will do so in a safer environment. Those surrounding them are responsible for their actions and suffer consequences when someone is injured."

Simply stated, land owners, such as the Forest Service and park departments, are on the hook for negligence by their employees, like bad driving, that causes accidents and injuries for people out biking, hiking or any other recreation.

NFRA Members highlight

Love the pictures of NFRA members John and Jenise Cunningham as 2009 Mule Days "Most Honored Packers"!   Great photo -would just like to add that the gorgeous horses they are riding are a team of McGee Creek Pack Station horses - "Bob and Betty"   Awesome people, awesome horses! 

Forest Fire Funds Aid D.C. Festivals

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times

September 11, 2009

 

Even with forest fires raging out West, the U.S. Forest Service this week announced it will spend nearly $2.8 million in forest-fire-fighting money in Washington -- a city with no national forests and where the last major fire was probably lit by British troops in 1814.

 

The D.C. aid is going to two programs: $90,000 is slated for a green summer job corps, but the vast majority of the money -- $2.7 million -- is going to Washington Parks & People, which sponsors park festivals and refurbishes urban parks in the Washington area.

 

Forest Service officials didn't return messages left seeking comment on why they spent money from their "wildland fire mitigation" stimulus fund in Washington, but members of Congress said city parks don't deserve the money while fires are scorching millions of acres of land and owners are losing homes.

 

"As catastrophic wildfires continue to burn throughout the West, destroying people's homes and businesses in the process, funds that should be used to thin our overgrown forests and protect the public are being frivolously spent on park restoration," said Rep. Wally Herger, a California Republican whose district has seen some of the worst fires. "While the administration is spending millions of taxpayer dollars on improving picnic grounds, communities and citizens' lives tragically remain at risk."

 

The $2.7 million in stimulus aid also appeared to come as a surprise to the folks at Washington Parks & People.

 

"We do not yet know anything beyond the information that we saw on the [Agriculture Department] Web site yesterday," the group's executive director, Stephen W. Coleman, said in an e-mail response. The Forest Service is part of the Agriculture Department.

Washington Parks & People is a 19-year-old organization that says its mission is to revitalize "once-forgotten parks and communities throughout the inner capital region."

 

 

The stimulus bill, which passed Congress and was signed by President Obama in February, was designed to create jobs and take care of urgent priorities. The $787 billion package set aside $500 million for the Forest Service for fire mitigation, and included another $15 million for Interior Department firefighting efforts.

 

On Thursday, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report arguing that the stimulus bill has created or saved at least 1 million jobs, and will mean economic growth is up to 3 percentage points higher this quarter than would have been the case if Congress had not acted.

 

Republicans disputed the jobs number, saying 2.5 million people have lost their jobs since Mr. Obama signed the bill, and arguing it's impossible to calculate what constitutes a "saved" job.

 

Republicans also have charged that some stimulus money is being wasted -- a charge some have leveled at the Forest Service before.

 

Earlier this year, Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter asking why the agency was sending money to states with no Forest Service land. Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and Rhode Island all received money, even though they don't have any national forests.

 

Mr. Hastings pointed to the wildfires raging in the West and asked for an accounting of how those decisions were made, and how many jobs have been created by the spending. His office said he has not received a response.

 

Under the new money announced this week, Rhode Island received an additional $449,000 in wildfire suppression money, Delaware received $895,000 and Massachusetts was awarded $4.5 million. The Massachusetts money is slated to go to "Asian Longhorn beetle Area Watershed Health and Ecological Enhancement," according to the Forest Service announcement.

 

While those states have state forest land, Washington, D.C., does not, and forest fires are not generally considered a risk.

 

In fact, according to the National Interagency Fire Center's definition of wildland fire -- which is a fire that consumes undeveloped areas with sparse habitation -- Washington can't even have a wildland fire.

 

NIFC doesn't even list the city in its online reports of annual wildland fire statistics.

 

Nationwide, forest fires have burned more than 5 million acres of land this year.

 

This is not the first time Washington has received an outsized benefit from stimulus money. Despite being one of the smallest jurisdictions, the capital city has received about $2.3 billion as of late August, or more than 19 states have received, including some with populations five or six times bigger.

 

Recreation trends driven by low water, empty wallets

 

 

Tom Stienstra, Chronicle Outdoors Writer

Sunday, January 25, 2009

(01-24) 18:56 PST -- Do you own a pair of hiking boots? A bike? A sleeping bag?

What about a boat or RV?

Your likely answers to these questions show how the public has transformed the outdoor experience in the Bay Area and Northern California into a new era.

Hiking, biking and camping are huge right now. The past two weekends, with clear skies and warm afternoons, parking areas at trailheads at Bay Area parks were packed, and campsite reservations for the coming year in California are the highest ever recorded for January.

Yet in the past year there have been scant few boats out anywhere and even fewer RVs on the road. The summer's prospects, tied to water levels at lakes and cash in pocket, are bleak.

Of the five major outdoors activities, here's how prospects shape up for the coming year:

1. Camping: No cash? Camping is the answer: Low-cost getaways to destinations with world-class beauty. The state has roughly 800 major campgrounds at parks, lakes, rivers and wilderness trailheads. Except for coastal sites in Monterey Bay and San Diego, the price for overnight trips is still the best deal around. The marquee names - Yosemite, Tahoe, Monterey - will fill daily all summer. "We don't have more spaces, but we have more reservations, earlier, than ever before," said deputy director Roy Stearns of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Best opportunities: Lassen Volcanic National Park, Redwood Empire, Tahoe's Emerald Bay boat-in.

2. Hiking: For the price of boots and socks, your legs can take you through a gateway to some of the prettiest places imaginable. Hiking is also a portal to health, and when the endorphins kick in, euphoria. There is no better place to spend the winter than in the Bay Area: 150 parks with roughly 7,500 miles of trails that lead to mountain tops and foothill ridges with spectacular views, 20 waterfalls and 10 major redwood forests. Best opportunities: Point Reyes, Big Basin Redwoods, East Bay Regional Parks.

3. Biking: The advantage of a mountain bike, to cover 10 to 15 miles of backcountry with the equivalent effort of hiking about 5 miles, provides fast access to miles of unbelievable wild terrain in the Bay Area's biggest parks. With low rainfall this winter, trail conditions haven't been mucked up like most years. Best opportunities: Wilder Ranch State Park, East Bay Parks, Marin Watershed, Henry W. Coe State Park.

4. Wildlife watching: Wildlife watching is one of the rare experiences that can be shared equally by all, regardless of age or background. Sighting a bear or elk, sea otter or whale, bald eagle or osprey captures the thrill of the outdoors. These two reasons will keep destinations with wildlife tops not only in California, but across America. Best opportunities: Pierce Ranch (Point Reyes), Sequoia National Park, Prairie Creek Redwoods, Elkhorn Slough, Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Grizzly Island.

5. Backpacking: Treks in California's 137 wilderness areas are inexpensive, ambitious and world-class. A bonus in the past two years is that a light snowpack in the Sierra Nevada has provided earlier and longer access to the high country - from late May through mid-November. One oddity: Wilderness treks are beloved, not by youth, many of whom don't like the effort, but by older Boomers who yearn for self-reliance, pristine surroundings with absolute quiet, and the accompanying sense of freedom. In the Bay Area, the backpack camps at Point Reyes and Big Basin are now among the most popular campsites in California.

Read Tom Stienstra's weekly outdoors notes online at sfgate.com/sports.

On the decline

Boating: Low lake levels, coastal fishing closures, high cost of new boats, storage restrictions in many Bay Area cities and maintenance costs have devastated boat owners (or those who might want one). Best opportunity: Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Fishing: Salmon season shut down, striped bass in tailspin and trout stocks cut in half. Best opportunity: Foothill reservoirs with largemouth bass.

Skiing and snowboarding: Lack of snow and high lodging costs in most areas have industry down 30 to 35 percent. This could change literally in a week with a series of big storms to open up all terrain, followed by blue skies, clear roads and a round of discounts to inspire trips.

Hunting: A 10 percent success rate for deer, the high cost of duck blinds and better duck-hunting elsewhere has frustrated the passionate few, and hunters are looking out-of-state for a quality experience. At last weekend's Sportsmen's Expo in Sacramento, the absolutely packed Hunting Hall featured many outfitters from Montana and elsewhere.

Adventure travel: Hotel bookings and RV travel are down 30 percent across the board, more in some regions. The decline started last spring when gas prices spiked, then plummeted further when cash tightened.

E-mail Tom Stienstra at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/SPV415FEEJ.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Wildlife Managers are Endangering Wolves

 

Jerry George

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Dang it! The wildlife folks have gone and got my dander up again. And you might say they're shooting themselves in the foot in the process.

According to the Associated Press, state and federal wildlife hunters have killed, or looked the other way while ranchers killed, 245 wolves this year in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, under depredation permits.

That's about one-sixth of the wolf population in the three states, all of whom are still supposedly protected by endangered species status.

The claim is that "problem" wolves are being eliminated so the remaining wolves can coexist with the civilized, honest, upright rural citizenry of the Rocky Mountains.

Buffalo chips! There isn't a soul on this blue-green planet, and that includes the most rabid wolf haters, who really believes that one-sixth of the wolves are munching cattle and sheep.

But that isn't the crazy part. Wildlife departments in all three states are pushing for the wolf to be downgraded to threatened from endangered so management can be turned over to the states, wolf hunting can be initiated and hunting licenses can be sold.

License fees are a major source of operating revenue for these departments. Hunting, you see, has decreased of late, especially by out-of-state hunters who have to cough up huge sums for their licenses.

The states are looking at the excitement of being able to shoot a wolf in the Lower 48 as a way to bring the out-of-staters back. The hunters come to shoot a wolf, buy licenses, stay in motels and frequent drinking establishments - all of which contributes to the state's bottom line.

Earlier this year, Rocky Mountain wolves were removed from the endangered species list, but before the states had a chance to initiate their hunting programs, a federal district court in Montana issued a stay based on what the court saw as a flawed management plan in Wyoming.

Now there is speculation that the Bush administration will downgrade the wolf's status as one of its lame-duck initiatives. Environmentalists say they will file suit on behalf of the wolves if that happens.

So it seems to my limited mind that it would be just the slightest bit counterproductive to go out and blast a sixth of the wolves and thereby raise the hackles of environmentalists with checkbooks at the ready to pay lawyers.

Not smart, ladies and gentlemen. Even environmentalists can do simple math, and when they add up the number of wolves killed this year, rest assured, they're gonna be as steamed as I am.

Now I have to be fair here. What lies at the base of these numbers is a shift of strategy in wolf management.

Recently, wildlife managers decided that eliminating individual wolves wasn't solving the problem of predation of ranch animals. The perception, and it is probably correct, is that once a pack learns to kill domestic animals, the whole pack presents a risk and has to be eliminated.

Under this strategy, seven packs were killed in Montana this year, the most notorious being the Hog Heaven pack near Kalispell on the north end of Flathead Lake. In all, 27 wolves were dispatched in that pack.

It is claimed that wolves killed at least 532 valuable ranch animals this year, 21 of which were llamas, which are used by sheep ranchers to protect their flocks.

That's a lot of animals, but the evidence that they indeed fell victim to wolves is inconsistent. Some did, I'm sure, and ranchers have a right to protect their animals. But the picture we have when reading these numbers is of a stealthy, snarling wolf pack slinking into a pasture and feasting on the innocents fenced therein.

Whoa! In many cases these incidents take place in national forests where the ranchers have leased grazing rights. The grazing animals are coming into the wolf's territory, not vice versa.

Claiming that the wolves have "developed" a taste for domestic animals under those circumstances, and then on the basis of such a claim to off the whole pack, seems unjustifiable.

And to commit this mayhem while trying to claim that your wildlife management plans will be executed in the best interest of the wolves?

Well, I'm having the devil's own time trying to find it in my heart to trust the very folks doing all this killing today with the management of wolf populations tomorrow.

Freelance writer "Digger" Jerry George sends his journal "letters" home to the Bay Area wherever he happens to be observing nature. He has come to rest for the time being on the Swinomish Indian reservation in the Puget Sound. E-mail him at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/27/HORN14OJ9T.DTL

This article appeared on page F - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Wildlife Managers are Endangering Wolves

 

Jerry George

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Dang it! The wildlife folks have gone and got my dander up again. And you might say they're shooting themselves in the foot in the process.

According to the Associated Press, state and federal wildlife hunters have killed, or looked the other way while ranchers killed, 245 wolves this year in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, under depredation permits.

That's about one-sixth of the wolf population in the three states, all of whom are still supposedly protected by endangered species status.

The claim is that "problem" wolves are being eliminated so the remaining wolves can coexist with the civilized, honest, upright rural citizenry of the Rocky Mountains.

Buffalo chips! There isn't a soul on this blue-green planet, and that includes the most rabid wolf haters, who really believes that one-sixth of the wolves are munching cattle and sheep.

But that isn't the crazy part. Wildlife departments in all three states are pushing for the wolf to be downgraded to threatened from endangered so management can be turned over to the states, wolf hunting can be initiated and hunting licenses can be sold.

License fees are a major source of operating revenue for these departments. Hunting, you see, has decreased of late, especially by out-of-state hunters who have to cough up huge sums for their licenses.

The states are looking at the excitement of being able to shoot a wolf in the Lower 48 as a way to bring the out-of-staters back. The hunters come to shoot a wolf, buy licenses, stay in motels and frequent drinking establishments - all of which contributes to the state's bottom line.

Earlier this year, Rocky Mountain wolves were removed from the endangered species list, but before the states had a chance to initiate their hunting programs, a federal district court in Montana issued a stay based on what the court saw as a flawed management plan in Wyoming.

Now there is speculation that the Bush administration will downgrade the wolf's status as one of its lame-duck initiatives. Environmentalists say they will file suit on behalf of the wolves if that happens.

So it seems to my limited mind that it would be just the slightest bit counterproductive to go out and blast a sixth of the wolves and thereby raise the hackles of environmentalists with checkbooks at the ready to pay lawyers.

Not smart, ladies and gentlemen. Even environmentalists can do simple math, and when they add up the number of wolves killed this year, rest assured, they're gonna be as steamed as I am.

Now I have to be fair here. What lies at the base of these numbers is a shift of strategy in wolf management.

Recently, wildlife managers decided that eliminating individual wolves wasn't solving the problem of predation of ranch animals. The perception, and it is probably correct, is that once a pack learns to kill domestic animals, the whole pack presents a risk and has to be eliminated.

Under this strategy, seven packs were killed in Montana this year, the most notorious being the Hog Heaven pack near Kalispell on the north end of Flathead Lake. In all, 27 wolves were dispatched in that pack.

It is claimed that wolves killed at least 532 valuable ranch animals this year, 21 of which were llamas, which are used by sheep ranchers to protect their flocks.

That's a lot of animals, but the evidence that they indeed fell victim to wolves is inconsistent. Some did, I'm sure, and ranchers have a right to protect their animals. But the picture we have when reading these numbers is of a stealthy, snarling wolf pack slinking into a pasture and feasting on the innocents fenced therein.

Whoa! In many cases these incidents take place in national forests where the ranchers have leased grazing rights. The grazing animals are coming into the wolf's territory, not vice versa.

Claiming that the wolves have "developed" a taste for domestic animals under those circumstances, and then on the basis of such a claim to off the whole pack, seems unjustifiable.

And to commit this mayhem while trying to claim that your wildlife management plans will be executed in the best interest of the wolves?

Well, I'm having the devil's own time trying to find it in my heart to trust the very folks doing all this killing today with the management of wolf populations tomorrow.

Freelance writer "Digger" Jerry George sends his journal "letters" home to the Bay Area wherever he happens to be observing nature. He has come to rest for the time being on the Swinomish Indian reservation in the Puget Sound. E-mail him at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/27/HORN14OJ9T.DTL

This article appeared on page F - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Proposed rule change would allow bicyclists in national parks' backcountry areas

By Kirk Johnson

New York Times

Article Launched: 12/19/2008 12:03:45 AM PST

DENVER — Mountain bikers, now barred from most backcountry areas in national parks, could have thousands of miles of trails opened up to them under a rule change proposed Thursday by the Interior Department.

The proposal raised tensions between hikers and bikers, who face off against one another on dirt byways all over the country. Each group is burdened with a stereotype that is part true and part myth: thrill-seeking gear heads on one side, plodding leaf peepers on the other, each group accusing the other of not fully appreciating the great out-of-doors.

"The question is whether it can be managed well — whether one group doesn't deprive others of their enjoyment," said Jeff Ruch, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers and land managers.

In any case, Ruch added, "it's a symptom of growing user conflict in the national park system."

The proposal would not take effect until the middle of next year at the earliest, National Park Service officials said. Under the plan, many trail usage decisions would be made at the level of individual parks, rather than at the central National Park Service office.

Both sides say that would accelerate trail decisions and probably result in a new arena of discussion — or conflict — at each park headquarters, with administrators being lobbied by the two groups. Existing trails would be the main focus of the change; most proposals for new trails would still have to go through lengthy review.

Opponents said that the rule change could open up to bicycling millions of acres now designated as potential wilderness.

"Seventy-five million Americans hike, and they want solitude and a slow-paced connection with nature," said Gregory Miller, the president of the American Hiking Society, an umbrella group of 275 local organizations. Biking groups say that the national parks are in trouble, and that young people are more likely to connect with outdoor life and physical fitness through biking. Overnight backcountry camping stays fell by about 21 percent from 1997 to 2007, according to the National Park Service.

"We think mountain biking could bring new and younger visitors to the parks who are not now finding the recreational opportunities that they are seeking," said Mark Eller, a spokesman for the International Mountain Bicycling Association, a group based in Boulder, Colo., that has been pushing for a park expansion of mountain biking for years.

Fixing Interior

New York Times

December 17, 2008

Editorial

 

Senator Ken Salazar, the Colorado Democrat who is President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for secretary of the interior, will inherit a department riddled with incompetence and corruption, captive to industries it is supposed to regulate and far more interested in exploiting public resources than conserving them.

No cabinet post is as critical to the integrity of the nation’s parks, its open spaces and its animal species. Mr. Obama, and his environmental adviser in chief, Carol Browner, must be prepared to offer Mr. Salazar full support, especially in fending off the ranchers and the oil, gas, mining and other special interests who have always found the Interior Department to be a soft target, never more so than in the Bush administration.

Mr. Salazar’s most urgent task will be to remove the influence of politics and ideology from decisions that are best left to science.

Just as Mr. Salazar’s name was surfacing for the job, Earl Devaney, currently the department’s inspector general, reported to Congress that on 15 separate occasions the department’s political appointees had weakened protections for endangered species against the advice of the agency’s scientists, whose work they either ignored or distorted.

This sort of meddling has become standard operating procedure. Julie MacDonald, a former deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, resigned last year after an earlier report found that she had run roughshod over agency scientists and violated federal rules by giving internal documents to industry lobbyists.

Mr. Salazar’s second big task will be to achieve a rational balance between the department’s oil and gas leasing program and its obligation to protect environmentally sensitive lands and the wildlife that depend on them. Reconciling energy and environmental demands has never been easy, but some interior secretaries — notably Bruce Babbitt, who served under President Bill Clinton — have proceeded with greater care than others.

Mr. Bush’s Interior Department, driven largely by Vice President Dick Cheney’s drill-here, drill-now energy strategy, has aggressively issued new leases and drilling permits in areas that not only deserve to be left alone but that also, even if fully exploited, would add only marginally to the nation’s energy supply.

The third big task will be to deal with departmental corruption, some of it extending back many years.

In September, the industrious Mr. Devaney delivered three reports to Congress detailing widespread corruption in the Minerals Management Service, the division responsible for granting offshore oil leases and collecting royalties. According to Mr. Devaney, officials accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drugs and sex with oil company employees.

“Short of a crime,” Mr. Devaney said, “anything goes at the Department of the Interior.”

He referred, of course, to personal behavior. But the department’s failings go beyond that to its coziness with the industries it is sworn to regulate, its reckless assault on the country’s natural resources and its abuse of science. Mr. Salazar has his work cut out for him.

Iowa Ex-Governor Picked for Agriculture Secretary

 

New York Times

 

December 17, 2008

By JEFF ZELENY and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

CHICAGO — President-elect Barack Obama has selected former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa to serve as his agriculture secretary, according to officials familiar with the decision, and will make the announcement on Wednesday as he works to round out his remaining cabinet nominations.

Mr. Vilsack, who briefly sought the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2008 race after serving two terms as governor, is a strong proponent of renewable energy and developing the nation’s alternative fuel industry. He will be joined at a news conference here by Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, who will be nominated as interior secretary.

Mr. Vilsack’s nomination comes at a time of extraordinary tumult for the American agricultural industry, which not only has been battered by the recession, but is also increasingly entangled in the contentious debate over energy policy. The Agriculture Department is also contending with a sharp increase in the demand for food assistance in the wake of the economic turmoil.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Vilsack are regarded as staunch advocates of ethanol and other bio-fuels as a way to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil. And Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress are working on a major economic stimulus package, in which they intend to promote the creation of thousands of new jobs tied to “green energy” industries, including the production of solar and wind energy.

One of the first major decisions Mr. Obama and Mr. Vilsack may have to make is whether to grant the ethanol industry’s requests for billions in federal aid in the stimulus bill, which Mr. Obama has said he hopes to sign into law quickly, perhaps on his first day in office.

“The big issue for him and any incoming secretary is going to be biofuels, that’s the sector that right now is in such a volatile position,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group that is a leading critic of federal farm subsidies. American farmers, Mr. Cook said, are “hitched to both the food system and the energy system, both of which are oscillating.”

Mr. Vilsack, 58, sought the presidential nomination for about three months, dropping out shortly after Mr. Obama entered the race. At the time, Mr. Vilsack criticized the campaign as a process that rewarded intense fund-raising over innovative ideas. He endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and served as a co-chairman of her campaign, often criticizing Mr. Obama as lacking experience for the job.

But during the general election, Mr. Vilsack energetically campaigned for Mr. Obama, promoting their common ideas on renewable energy and rural growth. Late last month, Mr. Vilsack told friends he did not believe he would be selected because he had not been interviewed, but Democrats familiar with the process said the two men got along well during a recent meeting in Chicago.

Mr. Vilsack, like the president-elect, is a strong advocate of combating global warming and developing alternative sources of energy. He was the co-chairman of a task force last year on climate change for the Council on Foreign Relations, which recommended phasing out subsidies for mature biofuels, including corn-based ethanol, as well as reducing tariffs on imported biofuels like Brazilian sugar ethanol.

“Let us build a 21st-century rural economy of cutting-edge companies and technologies that lead us to energy and food security,” Mr. Vilsack wrote in one of several op-ed articles he had published during the campaign. “Such an investment will revitalize rural America, re-establish our moral leadership on climate security and eliminate our addiction to foreign oil.”

Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, said Tuesday evening that the biggest challenge facing the next agriculture secretary would be writing rules for the new farm bill. Mr. Buis praised the selection of Mr. Vilsack, who as governor promoted the use of alternative energy as a means of revitalizing rural America.

“Governors understand what’s going on out there,” Mr. Buis said. “With the severe economic conditions in rural America, it’s good to have someone who understands the challenges we face.”

Mr. Vilsack, a native of Pittsburgh, moved to Iowa to live in the hometown of his college-sweetheart-turned-wife, Christie Vilsack. His career in politics was unexpectedly born in 1986 when a disgruntled resident of Mount Pleasant barged into a City Council meeting and killed the mayor.

Mr. Vilsack stepped in to serve as mayor. He later ran for the State Senate and in 1998 was elected governor in a campaign that even his closest friends did not believe he could win.

Mr. Vilsack, who has spent the fall semester as a political fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, works as a lawyer in Des Moines. Four years ago, he was among those who were considered to be a running mate for Senator John Kerry. Mr. Vilsack was not on the short list of candidates to join Mr. Obama’s ticket.

Experts said Mr. Vilsack’s experience as governor of a major corn-producing state makes him intimately familiar with many of the issues, but it also raises questions about whether he will be partial to growers of the crop that his state is known for.

“You can’t be a politician from Iowa and not be identified with a pro-corn, pro-ethanol stance,” said Mr. Cook, who leads the Environmental Working Group. “I just hope he will be more realistic and shoot straight with the public about what the prospects are of this in terms of energy independence.”

Jeff Zeleny reported from Chicago, and David M. Herszenhorn from Washington.

 

Decline in Forest visits

Hi All:
We saw about a 13% decline in visits to our campgrounds on our three different National Forests in 2008 alone.  We have had flat or declining visits since 2004.  The causes of the decline include high gas prices (especially this past summer) and children/young people more into electronic entertainment, our area have some factors that are directly impacted by Forest Service decisions of the past.

We have had trailheads and campgrounds closed but no new areas opened.  Plus the decline in Forest Service recreation and road monies due to shifting the cost of fighting fires directly on to the Forest Service budget has had a big impact on accessibility.  The roads to recreation sites have never been so bad (in my 22 years of work in the National Forests).  Roads are being abandoned at an alarming rate.  No budget exist for trail maintenance; this year all Forest Service offices had their rec budgets siphoned off to pay for the fires in California.

The Forest Service has their head in the sand (understandable due to budget constraints) on improving campgrounds with electrical hookups, yet this is the single most requested improvement we hear from campers that they desire in their national forests.  Our baby-boomer campers have given up the tents for motorhomes and RVs yet still want to experience the outdoors as they have in the past.  They want electrical hookups when they come to run their sleep apnea machines, their nebulizers and oxygen concentrators, monitors and microwaves.

The forests in many of my areas are in deplorable condition due to over maturity of the stand more than any other factor.  Forests have a life cycle and many of the forests where these camps were located were mature when the camps were built, some 30 to 50 years ago.  We can hardly keep up with the dead and dying trees that are over mature and die of natural causes, drought and bug infestations.  Some areas where we have camps have over 90% of their trees dead in the surrounding forest due to blister rust and pine beetles.  Other areas have had catastrophic blow downs because the trees are too big to withstand the forces of the normal wind cycles in that area.  Once one location becomes denuded, adjacent areas are vulnerable.  We have no understory of younger trees that are less susceptible to the forces of gale winds (70 to 80 mph with sustained winds of 50 mph).  One forest surrounding camps I administer had 40% of its trees blow down in one wind event in 2007.  This left us vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire which we experienced in 2008; now this area is mostly denuded and will take 20 to 30 years to regenerate to a "scenic" quality.  It does not help that we have a climate of intimidation from environmentalists that sue 100% of logging proposal made by the National Forests here in Montana.  This has deterred our Forest Service offices from even proposing the needed logging to keep these old, over-mature forests healthy.  I am seeing the demise of 300-year old trees due to their over-mature environment.  These over-mature forests with their bare and jack-straw mess of fallen trees are not scenic.  Recreating in these areas is hampered by lack of clear trails due to falling trees.  There is no possibility of recreating off a trail either.

We, as stewards of the scenic environments of America, need to be vocal in this new administration about the decline in the forests due to the removal of managerial over-site from the Forest Service to untrained judges and environmental groups.  The best tool the Forest Service possesses to reduce fire fuel buildup and to improve forest health is logging which also generates jobs and tax dollars for the local community.  While we cannot return to the logging level of the 1980's which was probably not sustainable, we cannot afford to remain in the logging moratorium we are now experiencing.  The Forest Service was mandated by Congress to spend $700 million every biennium to reduce fuel buildup at the expense of our roads, recreation and law enforcement budgets.  Yet in the past, we successfully reduced fuel buildup by selling timber.  You do the math; pay to have fuels removed from the forest or have private industry pay (at least most of the cost, if not all) with the resulting savings benefiting District budgets, local community tax base and recreation, law enforcement and roads within our National Forests.   This is a solution readily available to the Forest Service that can have a great impact on future visits by the American people to their natural heritage.

NFRA Conference, March 3-5, 2009

We are proud to announce NFRA's 61st Annual Conference and Trade Show will be held in San Diego from March 3-5, 2009.  Attend this conference and join the country's top experts in private concession management of public recreation facilities. 

Each year, this conference attracts operators of resorts, campgrounds, marinas, stores, organization camps, pack stations, and outfitter guides to network and share information.  Government attendees, particularly from the Forest Service, consistently report that they learned more about the details of recreation permit management in this two-day conference than they have in any number of internal training programs.

Located at the beautiful Hilton San Diego Resort and Spa

We've secured a great daily rate for our guests at the Hilton San Diego Resort and Spa, located right on the beach at Mission Bay.  For our government attendees, the hotel has agreed to match to local Federal per diem rate.

The newly renovated Hilton San Diego Resort offers impeccably appointed rooms on an 18-acre bayfront park. Enjoy lush gardens, rolling lawns and sandy bayfronts just steps from your door. Each room features a large balcony or patio, king or two queen-sized beds, high speed Internet access, coffee maker, 27 inch television with in-room movies, hairdryer, iron and ironing board, voice mail and dataports.

The special NFRA hotel rates are valid 3 days before and 3 days after the conference.  The resort is located just minutes away from the airport, SeaWorld, the San Diego Zoo, and numerous other San Diego attractions, so we encourage you to combine business with pleasure!

You can make hotel reservations here at our special conference page, or call Hilton at 619-276-4010 and ask for group code NFRA.  A map and directions are here.

A Great Agenda

The final agenda for the conference is still being completed, but the basic outline is as follows:

Tuesday March 3, 2009
12:00 - 1:30              Registration
1:30 - 4:30                General Session          
4:30 - 5:30                NFRA Membership Meeting & Forest Service Meeting
6:00                         Reception
 
Wednesday March 4, 2009
8:30 - 12:00              General Session
12:00 - 1:30              Ranger of the Year Luncheon
1:30 - 5:00                Breakout Sessions

Thursday March 5, 2009
8:30 - 11:30              Breakout Sessions
11:30 - 12:00            Closing Session

We anticipate general session and breakout topics to include:

• Trends and outlook for recreation
• Legislative initiatives affecting regreation
• Discussion of US Forest Service priorities
• A special session for government employees on the economics of the concession business
• Recreation marketing
• Using the Internet to increase profits
• Insurance
• Inventory management
• New products to increase recreation profitability

Registration

Registration rates are the same as in previous years.  Members and government employees may register before February 15 for $275, or for $325 thereafter.  Registration for non-members and non-government employees is $425 (no early discount available).  As in past years, we offer discounts for the multiple employees from the same firm and for spouses. 

You may view all the rates, as well as register and pay online, at the NFRA conference registration page.  Or, you may download and print a registration form here (.pdf file requires Acrobat Reader) and mail it in with a payment by check.  If you have any questions, you may call Mary Buonaguidi at our event manager ConferenceDirect at (760) 942-7104.  Or, you may call Marily Reese of NFRA at (559) 564-2365.

Time for Forest Service to Return to Roots

Sunday, November 9, 2008 (SF Chronicle)
Time for Forest Service to return to roots



Development: Can the Forest Service tackle climate change?
What it means: It's been a dismal eight years for the U.S. Forest Service.
When President Bush took office, the agency gave up on protecting roadless
consumed by firefighting - which now takes up nearly 50
percent of its budget.
But the West's fires are a symptom of a warming climate and an already
stressed environment. The Forest Service needs to tackle the problem at
its roots. How?
First: Protect the highest-quality lands and reconnect landscapes.
Fragmented habitats won't survive future floods, fire and drought.
Second: Engage communities in restoration.
This will create high-wage jobs in the rural areas that most need them.
Reducing hazardous fuels will reduce the cost of firefighting, and the cut
trees and brush could be used for biomass energy, offsetting demand for
oil and gas. Our national forests are a natural showcase for the
responsible development of renewable wind and solar energy.
The Forest Service was created 100 years ago to provide the greatest good
for the greatest number for the longest time. With climate change
threatening our planet, it's time for the agency to reclaim its
conservation mantle.
- Chris Wood From an eagle's-eye view

Sequoia National Forest Turns 100! CLM Honored.

The Sequoia National Forest celebrated its 100th birthday on July 1, 2008.  As a part of that celebration, the Forest Service selected several individuals and organizations for special recognition for their contributions to the Sequoia.  California Land Management was pleased to be among those so honored. 

Pictured at right are CLM's local Managers on the Sequoia - Jim Langley and Debbie Campbell - shown receiving the Partners Through Time Award from Forest Supervisor Tina Terrell. 

www.c;m-services/com

National Get Outdoors Day Events!

California Land Management (CLM) staged two successful Get Outdoors Day events this past Saturday, June 14th.  The first event was the Huntington Lake Spring Clean.  Held on the Sierra National Forest - a total of over 40 volunteers (including Sierra National Forest Assistant Recreation Officer, Sue Burkindine, pictured at right) picked up trash and micro litter around the lake.  CLM also presented three wonderful speakers while the group enjoyed lunch (CLM provided a great BBQ) and then had several additional interpretive programs throughout the day.  Several Forest Service resorts and other local businesses donated prizes for the raffle and co-sponsored the event.

The second event was the 4th annual Upper Kern River Clean Up Day.  This event - held on the Sequoia National Forest - also focuses on trash and litter clean up in the wild and scenic Kern River Canyon.  California Land Management co-sponsors this clean up day with the Forest Service.  Several local Kern River rafting companies assisted in the effort and - with CLM - sponsored lunch for all of the participants.  This year set a new record for the number of volunteers involved - and a great time was had by all.

Both of these events were co-sponsored by the National Forest Recreation Association and the Take Pride in America program.    www.clm-services.com

Volunteers Needed for 4th Annual Upper Kern River Clean Up Day

Kernville

,

CA

– Members of the public are invited to participate in the Upper

Kern River

Clean Up day on June 14, 2008 – National Get Outdoors Day.  This annual event is sponsored by California Land Management (CLM) and the USDA Forest Service.

Interested volunteers should report at Corral Creek Day Use Area at 9:00 am on the 14^th.  Corral Creek is located off of Mountain 99 approximately 10 miles north of Kernville.

The event’s sponsors will provide all necessary instructions, maps, trash bags, etc.  The event is scheduled to run all day long.  Lunch will be provided by California Land Management – a professional outdoor recreation management firm that operates the developed recreation sites on the

Sequoia

National Forest

.  Several river outfitters will also be participating as sponsors at this year’s event.

Volunteers should wear the proper outdoor clothing – including sturdy hiking shoes, a long sleeve shirt, hat, and gloves.  Also – all volunteers must bring their own water.

This event started in response to a growing trash problem along the

Kern River

.  “We all share a genuine concern for the Kern and want to ensure its future as a safe, clean waterway for all.  This volunteer effort is one way we can restore the area, clean up the river corridor, and make it a better place for forest visitors to enjoy” says Cheryl Bauer, of the USDA Forest Service.

California

Land

Management – a founder of this event - has secured the additional sponsorship of the Take Pride in

America

organization, the More Kids to the Woods program, and the National Forest Recreation Association. 

“California Land Management has been in business operating the developed recreation sites on the

Sequoia

National Forest

since 1992,” states Debbie Campbell – CLM’s local manager.  “We view the clean up of the Upper Kern River as an important part of our role on the

Forest

.  The Upper Kern Clean Up Day is a way for our company to help repay the local community for all they do for us.”

Citizen’s groups, local youth groups (such as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts) are encouraged to participate.  For further information, please contact either Cheryl Bauer at 760-376-3781 x 630 ([email protected]) or Debbie Campbell at 760-376-1815 ([email protected]).