BHA discussion

[jackelope]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.

The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?

[bearpaw]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer.  Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed


http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons

Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
 
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
   


1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.

If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.

Guy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).

“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."

First and foremost to me is our constitution and bill of rights. When that is gone you'll have no rights! Politicians like Obama and Hillary are opposed to our founding documents, I cannot support anything that supports them.

We have a multitude of politicians who are not going to allow public land to be sold off. SCI, NRA, and all the other groups would be all over that. I know that I don't need to belong to a group supporting Obama and Hillary to save our public lands from being sold off.

If you are OK with that I understand, I know that we don't all share the same views and I was never trying to chastise anyone for that. I was trying to show where the financial support comes from and what the leadership of this group supports. I think that has been accomplished for those who didn't know.

[WAcoyotehunter]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

=196037.msg2599943#msg2599943 date=1464279844]

t Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

That's good to hear.  I wish more Republicans would reel into their representatives that are supporting the federal land transfers.

[jackelope]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer.  Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed


http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons

Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
 
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
   


1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.

If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.

Guy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).

“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."

First and foremost to me is our constitution and bill of rights. When that is gone you'll have no rights! Politicians like Obama and Hillary are opposed to our founding documents, I cannot support anything that supports them.

We have a multitude of politicians who are not going to allow public land to be sold off. SCI, NRA, and all the other groups would be all over that. I know that I don't need to belong to a group supporting Obama and Hillary to save our public lands from being sold off.

If you are OK with that I understand, I know that we don't all share the same views and I was never trying to chastise anyone for that. I was trying to show where the financial support comes from and what the leadership of this group supports. I think that has been accomplished for those who didn't know.

http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/ from December 2014......

..........If some members of Congress get their way, the Breaks, along with millions of acres of other public land, may go on the auction block.

Impossible? The sale of national forest and BLM land may seem like little more than an environmentalist’s conspiracy theory or a far-fetched plan that would never get past public outrage. However, seven Western states have passed legislation asking the federal government to turn federal lands over to state governments.

If that’s not frightening enough, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, mentioned the “sale of unneeded federal property” in his 2012 budget proposal. Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) introduced H.R. 2657, titled “The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2013.” It directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell millions of acres of land in 10 Western states. The proceeds would go toward decreasing the federal debt. Fortunately, the bill is stalled in committee.

Even if Chaffetz’s legislation goes nowhere, it signals a disturbing trend, says Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Executive Director Land Tawney. A number of state and federal legislators have long pushed for the return of federal land to the states. They insist individual states can manage the land better than the federal government. Tawney isn’t buying it.

“The management of national forests and BLM lands is expensive. Road maintenance and firefighting budgets alone can add up to millions. If states took control of federal land, how would they pay for the upkeep? They would either raise taxes or sell land, and we know how unpopular the idea of raising taxes is,” says Tawney.

One study found that Montana would lose $200 million per year managing what is currently federal land, even after various revenue streams were taken into account. Aside from the direct monetary loss, selling even small blocks of federal land, tracts deemed “surplus” or “unneeded” by legislators, could have disastrous consequences for hunters. Any loss of public land translates to fewer opportunities.


Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/#ixzz49meE6WHK

[bearpaw]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.

The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?

First of all you must look at each issue rather than try to lump it as one question, that's impossible to deal with in one answer.

Running State Parks
As you know I spent one summer donating my time to serve on the state parks and recreation task force, we held public meetings in towns across the state taking public input and trying to resolve issues such as funding for state parks. To say it's a very complex issue is an understatement. The legislature has a funding shortfall and will not fully fund state parks, it would take away from other areas that need funding. So there is partial funding. Next the state created the Discover Pass, but many hunters and citizens now avoid going to state land and don't buy it, so Parks are still underfunded. If you start charging an admission to enter state parks people will simply quit using parks and they will still be underfunded. Short of an improving economy or increasing taxes for better legislative funding there are not many alternatives other than finding funding from private sources such as venders who will to pay to offer services on state parks. Another consideration might be to use private contractors for maintenance and administration, but that wasn't a recommendation of the group and I doubt will ever happen. Most people with jobs at state parks want to keep their jobs and don't want private contractors. No business is going to run a state park unless they can see a way to turn a profit, the public probably will oppose that, so there is no answer for this question at this time!

Managing Sections Of Forest
I will use myself and other outfitters as an example. Outfitters pay the USFS and BLM to conduct all types of recreational activities on the forest. Often times the USFS contracts with outfitters to open up and repair sections of trail because we generally have the pack animals and experience to do it cheaper than if the USFS had to assemble a crew, gear, and animals. Another example is logging, when the USFS decides to log an area they open it to bids by private logging companies that have the experience and equipment to do the logging more efficiently and less costly. I really think the USFS should look at additional functions and responsibilities that private contractors could do for less cost to taxpayers. Fire supression is a perfect example, I think there are logging companies who would gladly bid on fire suppression which could be incorporated into logging operations to reduce fuel load. There are probably lots of answers if people are willing to ask the question of how can we save money with private contractors.

[bearpaw]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer.  Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed


http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons

Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
 
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
   


1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.

If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.

Guy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).

“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."

First and foremost to me is our constitution and bill of rights. When that is gone you'll have no rights! Politicians like Obama and Hillary are opposed to our founding documents, I cannot support anything that supports them.

We have a multitude of politicians who are not going to allow public land to be sold off. SCI, NRA, and all the other groups would be all over that. I know that I don't need to belong to a group supporting Obama and Hillary to save our public lands from being sold off.

If you are OK with that I understand, I know that we don't all share the same views and I was never trying to chastise anyone for that. I was trying to show where the financial support comes from and what the leadership of this group supports. I think that has been accomplished for those who didn't know.

http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/ from December 2014......

..........If some members of Congress get their way, the Breaks, along with millions of acres of other public land, may go on the auction block.

Impossible? The sale of national forest and BLM land may seem like little more than an environmentalist’s conspiracy theory or a far-fetched plan that would never get past public outrage. However, seven Western states have passed legislation asking the federal government to turn federal lands over to state governments.

If that’s not frightening enough, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, mentioned the “sale of unneeded federal property” in his 2012 budget proposal. Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) introduced H.R. 2657, titled “The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2013.” It directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell millions of acres of land in 10 Western states. The proceeds would go toward decreasing the federal debt. Fortunately, the bill is stalled in committee.

Even if Chaffetz’s legislation goes nowhere, it signals a disturbing trend, says Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Executive Director Land Tawney. A number of state and federal legislators have long pushed for the return of federal land to the states. They insist individual states can manage the land better than the federal government. Tawney isn’t buying it.

“The management of national forests and BLM lands is expensive. Road maintenance and firefighting budgets alone can add up to millions. If states took control of federal land, how would they pay for the upkeep? They would either raise taxes or sell land, and we know how unpopular the idea of raising taxes is,” says Tawney.

One study found that Montana would lose $200 million per year managing what is currently federal land, even after various revenue streams were taken into account. Aside from the direct monetary loss, selling even small blocks of federal land, tracts deemed “surplus” or “unneeded” by legislators, could have disastrous consequences for hunters. Any loss of public land translates to fewer opportunities.


Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/#ixzz49meE6WHK

It appears to me that the other legislators stalled it in committee, it didn't even make it out of committee, I don't see an issue, the process is working as it should? Be sure and vote for legislators who represent your values!

Which comes back to the reason I cannot support BHA as long as they support Barrack and Hillary!

[jackelope]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.

The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?

First of all you must look at each issue rather than try to lump it as one question, that's impossible to deal with in one answer.

Running State Parks
As you know I spent one summer donating my time to serve on the state parks and recreation task force, we held public meetings in towns across the state taking public input and trying to resolve issues such as funding for state parks. To say it's a very complex issue is an understatement. The legislature has a funding shortfall and will not fully fund state parks, it would take away from other areas that need funding. So there is partial funding. Next the state created the Discover Pass, but many hunters and citizens now avoid going to state land and don't buy it, so Parks are still underfunded. If you start charging an admission to enter state parks people will simply quit using parks and they will still be underfunded. Short of an improving economy or increasing taxes for better legislative funding there are not many alternatives other than finding funding from private sources such as venders who will to pay to offer services on state parks. Another consideration might be to use private contractors for maintenance and administration, but that wasn't a recommendation of the group and I doubt will ever happen. Most people with jobs at state parks want to keep their jobs and don't want private contractors. No business is going to run a state park unless they can see a way to turn a profit, the public probably will oppose that, so there is no answer for this question at this time!

Managing Sections Of Forest
I will use myself and other outfitters as an example. Outfitters pay the USFS and BLM to conduct all types of recreational activities on the forest. Often times the USFS contracts with outfitters to open up and repair sections of trail because we generally have the pack animals and experience to do it cheaper than if the USFS had to assemble a crew, gear, and animals. Another example is logging, when the USFS decides to log an area they open it to bids by private logging companies that have the experience and equipment to do the logging more efficiently and less costly. I really think the USFS should look at additional functions and responsibilities that private contractors could do for less cost to taxpayers. Fire supression is a perfect example, I think there are logging companies who would gladly bid on fire suppression which could be incorporated into logging operations to reduce fuel load. There are probably lots of answers if people are willing to ask the question of how can we save money with private contractors.

So when the state lands are managed by an outside company, do we still need the Discover pass to access them? It's still state land, right? If so, what makes you think anything will change re: nobody is using the parks because of the Discover Pass? You can buy a 1 day pass for $10 I think at most state parks. $10 is cheap entertainment for a family and a day outdoors.

For the record, most of my questions are legitimate questions. I'm learning as I go here.

[bearpaw]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.

The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?

First of all you must look at each issue rather than try to lump it as one question, that's impossible to deal with in one answer.

Running State Parks
As you know I spent one summer donating my time to serve on the state parks and recreation task force, we held public meetings in towns across the state taking public input and trying to resolve issues such as funding for state parks. To say it's a very complex issue is an understatement. The legislature has a funding shortfall and will not fully fund state parks, it would take away from other areas that need funding. So there is partial funding. Next the state created the Discover Pass, but many hunters and citizens now avoid going to state land and don't buy it, so Parks are still underfunded. If you start charging an admission to enter state parks people will simply quit using parks and they will still be underfunded. Short of an improving economy or increasing taxes for better legislative funding there are not many alternatives other than finding funding from private sources such as venders who will to pay to offer services on state parks. Another consideration might be to use private contractors for maintenance and administration, but that wasn't a recommendation of the group and I doubt will ever happen. Most people with jobs at state parks want to keep their jobs and don't want private contractors. No business is going to run a state park unless they can see a way to turn a profit, the public probably will oppose that, so there is no answer for this question at this time!

Managing Sections Of Forest
I will use myself and other outfitters as an example. Outfitters pay the USFS and BLM to conduct all types of recreational activities on the forest. Often times the USFS contracts with outfitters to open up and repair sections of trail because we generally have the pack animals and experience to do it cheaper than if the USFS had to assemble a crew, gear, and animals. Another example is logging, when the USFS decides to log an area they open it to bids by private logging companies that have the experience and equipment to do the logging more efficiently and less costly. I really think the USFS should look at additional functions and responsibilities that private contractors could do for less cost to taxpayers. Fire supression is a perfect example, I think there are logging companies who would gladly bid on fire suppression which could be incorporated into logging operations to reduce fuel load. There are probably lots of answers if people are willing to ask the question of how can we save money with private contractors.

So when the state lands are managed by an outside company, do we still need the Discover pass to access them? It's still state land, right? If so, what makes you think anything will change re: nobody is using the parks because of the Discover Pass? You can buy a 1 day pass for $10 I think at most state parks. $10 is cheap entertainment for a family and a day outdoors.

For the record, most of my questions are legitimate questions. I'm learning as I go here.

No worries, I don't mind trying to answer questions.

First I don't see state lands being totally managed by any company in the future. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have a strong hunch current WA administrators would not want much outside contracting. I do think that many functions such as road maintenance and fire control could be contracted out and taxpayers would save money and likely see better services but that's only my opinion, I doubt that is the opinion of those running State Lands. Someone else may be able to elorate better on that.

I don't see the Discover Pass going away. Because nearly everyone testifying asked for more state parks and funding I suggested eliminating the DP which unfairly taxes hunters and fishers and adding $10 onto everyone's taxes in WA which would fully fund State Parks, creating much more revenue than the DP, I was shut down pretty hard at our meetings. I figured if everyone wants more and more state parks let everyone pay a little, but that wasn't acceptable. Most want more parks but want someone else to pay for them. And yes, the task force group voted to create more state parks even while we can't maintain what we have! Most people are simply financially irresponsible! 

Here's the thing. We need to get young people outdoors for all types of activities, we also need to get inner city people into the outdoors. Many of these people are financially limited so if there is a DP or admission to pay, they simply don't participate. I really think the only good alternative to increase state parks funding is just make state parks a dedicated portion of our state taxes so the legislature can't rob the money for other purposes. But I doubt this happens.

If any changes are made, I'm guessing it will probably be an increase to the cost of a Discover Pass!

[Special T]

The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?

First off Federal Lands and Parks are not even remotely the same. There are several reason why they cannot find some one to run a park. First and Foremost is that parks that are failing are mostly day use parks in sub prime locations. The only people willing to use/pay for parks are campers. If you cannot convert or add significant spots to a park its not viable who ever runs it. There are huge limitations on what either the Parks Department are allowed to do or have the funds to do. East side parks have a longer camping season and west side have more day use parks. all the parks doing well on the west side offer a significant amount of camping. Since parks were often donated with stipulations they werent really planned out, and the changes are hard to make because its not always possible to renegotiate the stipulations.

If you have not read the book I keep ranting about http://www.amazon.com/Tinder-Box-Politically-Ideology-Destroyed/dp/098277348X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342677309&sr=1-8&keywords=tinder+box

How does a self funding organization that provided so many opportunities end up costing us $ ?

Ive spent a fair bit of time in the back country and in wild places and I dont want them to go anywhere... The real problem is that the USFS owns LOTS of land that they have not logged in a long time due to politics. The USFS wouldnt even have to log very much to make a big funding difference. They are bogged down by lawsuits at every-turn and people who arnt foresters like they used to.

[jackelope]

The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?

First off Federal Lands and Parks are not even remotely the same. There are several reason why they cannot find some one to run a park. First and Foremost is that parks that are failing are mostly day use parks in sub prime locations. The only people willing to use/pay for parks are campers. If you cannot convert or add significant spots to a park its not viable who ever runs it. There are huge limitations on what either the Parks Department are allowed to do or have the funds to do. East side parks have a longer camping season and west side have more day use parks. all the parks doing well on the west side offer a significant amount of camping. Since parks were often donated with stipulations they werent really planned out, and the changes are hard to make because its not always possible to renegotiate the stipulations.

If you have not read the book I keep ranting about http://www.amazon.com/Tinder-Box-Politically-Ideology-Destroyed/dp/098277348X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342677309&sr=1-8&keywords=tinder+box

How does a self funding organization that provided so many opportunities end up costing us $ ?

Ive spent a fair bit of time in the back country and in wild places and I dont want them to go anywhere... The real problem is that the USFS owns LOTS of land that they have not logged in a long time due to politics. The USFS wouldnt even have to log very much to make a big funding difference. They are bogged down by lawsuits at every-turn and people who arnt foresters like they used to.

The examples I've been referring to in my posts in this thread are eastern Washington state owned campgrounds. The pictures I posted of the abandoned campground are of Central Ferry State Park.  It used to be a real nice campground in a beautiful location on the shore of the Snake River.
 
The point I was trying to make is if the state can't find someone to take control of a small state park, what makes us think they'd be any more able to find someone to run a giant swath of national or state forest?

[jackelope]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=-h1zYR02-AY

[bearpaw]

The state can't even find someone to run a state park. What makes you think they'll find a private contractor able to manage a giant swath of forest, do it well, and not charge for and/or limit access otherwise?

First off Federal Lands and Parks are not even remotely the same. There are several reason why they cannot find some one to run a park. First and Foremost is that parks that are failing are mostly day use parks in sub prime locations. The only people willing to use/pay for parks are campers. If you cannot convert or add significant spots to a park its not viable who ever runs it. There are huge limitations on what either the Parks Department are allowed to do or have the funds to do. East side parks have a longer camping season and west side have more day use parks. all the parks doing well on the west side offer a significant amount of camping. Since parks were often donated with stipulations they werent really planned out, and the changes are hard to make because its not always possible to renegotiate the stipulations.

If you have not read the book I keep ranting about http://www.amazon.com/Tinder-Box-Politically-Ideology-Destroyed/dp/098277348X/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342677309&sr=1-8&keywords=tinder+box

How does a self funding organization that provided so many opportunities end up costing us $ ?

Ive spent a fair bit of time in the back country and in wild places and I dont want them to go anywhere... The real problem is that the USFS owns LOTS of land that they have not logged in a long time due to politics. The USFS wouldnt even have to log very much to make a big funding difference. They are bogged down by lawsuits at every-turn and people who arnt foresters like they used to.

The examples I've been referring to in my posts in this thread are eastern Washington state owned campgrounds. The pictures I posted of the abandoned campground are of Central Ferry State Park.  It used to be a real nice campground in a beautiful location on the shore of the Snake River.
 
The point I was trying to make is if the state can't find someone to take control of a small state park, what makes us think they'd be any more able to find someone to run a giant swath of national or state forest?

I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for? It's pretty commonly recognized that a private business can perform the same function as a government agency for less cost. There is not doubt in my mind that if the state or federal government put management of a specified piece of forest up for bid that the cost of management would be lower for taxpayers and that the forest might even financially benefit taxpayers as oil does for Alaskans. Having said that, I doubt we will ever see that happen because there are too many tree huggers.

I'm pretty disgusted with federal management of our National Forests and BLM lands, in fact many people share that view. I certainly would never want to see the sale of our forests or BLM lands, but I would like to see more local influence over management, and wiser management. There is no reason taxpayers should be footing the bill for managing National Forests and fighting massive fires caused by over aged dying forests that should have been logged years ago. If logging was only allowed in the areas that have been logged in the past the USFS could be self supporting and possibly even add to the treasury. It's no accident that private forests are profitable and public forests are not.