High Sierra Topix

I agree with most of the opinions being expressed here and certainly the disappointment. Given that the forest service has a long history of failing to make profitable sales of our timber I can't support simply increasing their funding across the board, but I do support increasing the funding for responsible fire management. A great way to fund additional fire management, as well as other elements of public lands management, would be to expand the Pittman-Robertson Act to apply to a much broader scope of items currently used for outdoor pursuits on public lands, or create a similar but independent act that would tax a wide range of outdoor/recreational items. Beyond fire management, we could also use this to apply greater funds to trail maintenance, habitat reclamation and so many other needs our shared lands have. Fire is here to stay and we are all part of the equation.

My strong suspicion is that the closure is not really due to politics, resources, or a nanny state protectionism. Instead this is all about CYA- “cover your ass”. Low level government employees often operate primarily motivated by criticism avoidance and the fear that they may lose their jobs. Rampant litigation has only made this worse.

I interact a lot with building departments and regulatory agencies at the city, county and state levels. To get project sign-off for even the most small built detail I must get an inspection from the architect, from the engineer, from the building inspector, and from an additional private “deputy inspector”. It is all about heaping layers of protection so the local building department/city cant get blamed for anything. And if along the way some clown casually mentions some fire concern, Game Over.

However it is true that the only solution may be political. Low-level government employees are not accountable, but politicians are.

CAMERONM wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:21 am My strong suspicion is that the closure is not really due to politics, resources, or a nanny state protectionism. Instead this is all about CYA- “cover your ass”. Low level government employees often operate primarily motivated by criticism avoidance and the fear that they may lose their jobs. Rampant litigation has only made this worse.

I interact a lot with building departments and regulatory agencies at the city, county and state levels. To get project sign-off for even the most small built detail I must get an inspection from the architect, from the engineer, from the building inspector, and from an additional private “deputy inspector”. It is all about heaping layers of protection so the local building department/city cant get blamed for anything. And if along the way some clown casually mentions some fire concern, Game Over.

However it is true that the only solution may be political. Low-level government employees are not accountable, but politicians are.

I see it this way too. I think what they are worried about is if there were a fire to break out in any of the other national forests and they do not have the resources to respond then you can have loss of life or property. There will be people that will say why wasn't the forest closed to prevent this from happening and I'm sure politicians will get involved.

We all know hindsight is 20/20 and it always comes to "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

This is probably too big a subject...and too wide a thread drift...but one of the things that frustrates me about many in this country is that they want the government to do everything on the cheap--and then they want to complain about anything the government does that isn't foolproof.

You might get one or the other, but you never get both.

Raising taxes to keep our forests open is an insane idea. This is probably too far off topic for this thread but when it comes down to it, we are already spending the majority of our income on taxes after you factor in income, sales, property, gas, everything we do gets taxed. Yet when something is "underfunded" the first idea is to raise taxes or create a new tax to pay for that thing. If only the taxes we currently pay were used efficiently.. oh who am i kidding. Gov waste is never gonna go away because "its not their money". I see it all the time in gov construction.

Back on subject please.

I did some research about the closures. Why is SEKI still open, but not the national forests? It turns out if you look closely at the situation, you will find part of the rationale behind the closures is to shut out hunters. You can't discharge a gun in SEKI, so there is no issue with hunting. There is a move on in California to ban hunting. The anti-gun forces in California promote the theory that the only reason for owning a firearm is hunting. Therefore, if national forests are closed, how will people hunt? And if people can't hunt, why do they need guns?

The hunting theory does not compute with me. I am not up on current seasons and regulations, but it was my understanding that early hunting season is archery- not that many hunters and no bullets that could ricoche off rocks and spark a fire.

Unfortunately, a small minority of hunters have behaved badly (litter, big bonfires, whisky, drunk, shooting all over the place while in camp) and their behavior IS a fire hazard. Another reason hunting may have been in the consideration is that hunting takes place primarily in the sub-alpine areas which are the most fire-prone and includes some off-road vehicle use which could also start fires. I doubt this was a primary reason for closing National Forests, but may coincidentally have had a lot of noise and publicity from the anti-hunting organizations. Loud talk does not necessarily make policy.

SEKI staying open makes sense- it is far from most of the current fires. Yosemite a bit less so. Also NP's do not allow dispersed camping, which I think is a real problem for the FS. The FS may feel that with blanket closure no one faction is favored over another, perhaps fits better with their overall "multiple use" policy. All speculation on my part.

Bottom line, the media reports you hear are speculation by those who may have biases, just like our comments.

I too doubt the decision to shut down the NF's was to stop hunting. Way too much of a revenue stream to shut it down.
Archery was already open, and those are steel blades and still had people camping. Plus, we can still hunt out of state.

Pure and simple, the forests are too dry to allow anyone in which is a good decision based on the threat and size of land to protect.
After attending some CDFW conferences, even waterfowl seasons are impacted by lack of water to flood the ponds. I usually put in to the lottery for reservation draws for the full season. With the ponds not flooded, no reason to go until around Thanksgiving and even then, the lottery pressure gives a person about a 1 in 80,000 chance of a draw. Lots of money in that process, especially for the good refuges.

We need real rain.

richlong8 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:20 am I did some research about the closures. Why is SEKI still open, but not the national forests? It turns out if you look closely at the situation, you will find part of the rationale behind the closures is to shut out hunters. You can't discharge a gun in SEKI, so there is no issue with hunting. There is a move on in California to ban hunting. The anti-gun forces in California promote the theory that the only reason for owning a firearm is hunting. Therefore, if national forests are closed, how will people hunt? And if people can't hunt, why do they need guns?

As hard as this may be to believe, not everything in the US is about guns.