Post by: bearpaw on June 12, 2014, 07:52:08 PM
Everyone did an awesome job of helping put together the "Youth & New Hunter Recruitment" recommendations. I need some help identifying the issues affecting access in Washington and in offering solutions to help resolve these access problems. I put out a few potential ideas to get the discussion started, when finalized I will submit to the Recreation & Parks Task Force. Please offer your thoughts, and links to other discussions with ideas. THANKS!
Who to get involved
Encourage WDFW to increase efforts to keep lands open
Lobby legislators to consider property tax incentives
?
Issues and causes of decreasing access on private lands
Garbage Dumping
Equipment Vandalism
Resource Damage
Opportunity to profit from access fees
?
Issues and causes of decreasing access on state lands
Garbage Dumping
Resource Damage
?
Issues and causes of decreasing access on federal lands
Pressure from Environmentalists
Resource Damage
?
Steps to retain or increase access to all lands
Education through state publications and web sites
Increase fines for garbage dumping
?
?
Steps to retain or increase access to private lands
Expand on WDFW land access programs
Revise property tax classifications to benefit landowners who allow free public access
Meet with big timber and negotiate access
?
?
Steps to retain or increase access to state lands
?
?
?
Steps to retain or increase access to federal lands
State needs to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for public access
?
?
WDFW and other agencies are facing potential funding cuts, how can access easements or other costs to gain access be funded
?
?
?
Post by: huntrights on June 13, 2014, 06:24:02 PM
Who to get involved
Encourage WDFW to increase efforts to keep lands open
Lobby legislators to consider property tax incentives
Encourage the DNR to keep lands open.
Lobby legislators to place limits on the DNR and WDFW regarding road closures and decommissioning. They should get public input for each road closure and provide valid justification to close or decommission a road if they decide to move forward with their plan. Decommissioning/destroying roads should be discontinued completely. If people cant access our public lands, promoting outdoor recreation will become a moot point.
Involve user groups that are affected by lack of access; their input and influence is critical.
Involve our representatives (i.e. Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler) that have been involved at the federal level working to keep our public lands open (i.e. roads to trails DO NOT DECOMMISSION/DESTROY). Congresswoman Beutler and her staff have done a lot of work addressing this issue
The general public. Public education is critical to ensure the public understands that to be able to use and access private and public lands depends on each and every one of us being responsible and good stewards of that land. Smokey the Bear type messages and education.
State Tourism Office if we have one.
Schools. Promote hunting, fishing, and all other outdoor recreation through the school systems. Demand for access from the masses will encourage more public access.
Issues and causes of decreasing access on private lands
Garbage Dumping
Equipment Vandalism
Resource Damage
[Lack] of opportunity to profit from access fees
Lack of personnel and resources to police/monitor the guest users of private land.
Lack of respect for the property owners ( i.e. driving onto property near farm or ranch houses when the owners are sleeping)
Accessing private land without permission from the land owner.
Harvesting game on private land without permission.
The expense associated with garbage dumping and vandalism.
Not closing gates that should be closed.
Issues and causes of decreasing access on federal lands
Pressure from Environmentalists
Resource Damage
Man caused fires
Road closures or decommissioning/destruction of roads. Please investigate the roads to trails approach versus destroying roads.
Lack of funding and resources to maintain roads at a safe level.
Decrease in timber sales that support the U.S. Forest Service.
Problems with squatters, alcohol and drug parties in the woods, irresponsible people.
Lack of law enforcement resources to monitor and police the federal lands. The same is true for state lands.
Steps to retain or increase access to all lands
Education through state publications and web sites
Increase fines for garbage dumping
Public education through all media and our schools. Smokey the Bear type messages and education.
Adopt roads to trails programs versus decommissioning/destroying roads. Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler has promoted this at the federal level.
Continually work with agencies and land owners to promote keeping our public lands open to the public.
Remind our federal and state agencies that manage our public land that they do not own the land; they are merely managing our land for the benefit of the public; the land belongs to the public.
Steps to retain or increase access to private lands
Expand on WDFW land access programs
Revise property tax classifications to benefit landowners who allow free public access
Meet with big timber and negotiate access
Private property rights need to be respected so all access must be negotiated.
Provide incentives to private land owners to provide access to the public.
Steps to retain or increase access to state lands
Restrict road closures and decommissioning/destruction by the DNR and WDFW. Require public review and input prior to agency action.
STOP decommissioning/destroying roads; adopt roads to trails policies.
Promote partnerships with non-profit stewardship groups and other willing organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts) that are willing to be involved with trail and road maintenance and garbage pick-up.
Public education regarding good outdoor stewardship practices.
Dont be so quick to give-in to environmentalist pressure to keep people out of public lands.
Steps to retain or increase access to federal lands
State needs to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for public access
Restrict road closures and decommissioning/destruction by the DNR and WDFW. Require public review and input prior to agency action.
STOP decommissioning/destroying roads; adopt roads to trails policies.
Promote partnerships with non-profit stewardship groups and other willing organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts) that are willing to be involved with trail and road maintenance and garbage pick-up.
Public education regarding good outdoor stewardship practices.
Dont be so quick to give in to environmentalist pressure to keep people out of public lands.
WDFW and other agencies are facing potential funding cuts, how can access easements or other costs to gain access be funded
Promote partnerships with non-profit stewardship groups and other willing organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts) that are willing to be involved with trail and road maintenance and garbage pick-up.
Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler and her staff have done a great deal of work on the roads to trails approach to road closures which avoids road decommissioning/destruction. She also has information regarding funding opportunities for road maintenance such as:
o Timber sales
o Stewardship dollars
o Federal road tax
o Road maintenance rotation
Please consider contacting her office for details.
Post by: bearpaw on June 13, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
Post by: huntrights on June 13, 2014, 11:58:44 PM
huntrights, do you have any other ideas for state funding rather than federal
:twocents:
More taxes and fees always seems to be the easy way out, but Economics 101 has shown that approach becomes counterproductive when imposed in excess. Continually raising taxes and fees will eventually have detrimental effects on the economy and the outdoor activities we are trying to promote. We don't want more taxes and fees. Cutting waste and balancing budgets is a good start.
Promoting partnerships with stewardship organizations to help in areas where funding is shrinking or not available may be a viable option. However, finding and engaging those organizations on a consistent basis might be a challenge.
Perhaps other states have come up with creative ways to fund road maintenance and personnel requirements.
Raising the minimum wage by over 50% :bdid: may also contribute to funding issues since it is completely misaligned from the rest of the country. Maybe it will stay contained in Seattle. :dunno:
Funding is a complex issue that has no easy answers. It is also a likely significant contributor to many of our access issues ( i.e. lack of maintenance and personnel dollars).
Post by: stevemiller on June 14, 2014, 12:10:13 AM
huntrights, do you have any other ideas for state funding rather than federalI do,Make the fools that are breaking the rules pay for their crime,That would be state funding by itself.We need the prosecuting att. to do their job instead of letting the criminals walk all while we lose more and more areas.
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2014, 12:10:11 PM
Post by: stevemiller on June 14, 2014, 12:19:17 PM
Post by: Todd_ID on June 14, 2014, 08:39:25 PM
Hunting is a basic cost:perceived-benefit analysis as far as how many people participate. Increase the cost, and revenue goes up for a year, but you've ticked off people who will not participate the next year causing a net decrease in income.
Decrease the cost by offering resident hunters a 10% discount for multiple purchases or packages (for instance), and people will purchase more at checkout and be more willing to participate next year. Both scenarios tip the cost:benefit ratio different ways.
Increasing and decreasing the perceived benefit is cheaper and easier to do and will tip the ratio quicker than the cost side would.
Making the WDFW Access Pass good on DNR land in lieu of a Discover Pass is a good start: the hunter wins in slightly decreased cost and greatly increased perceived benefit: major tip of ratio. The state wins because of public image upticks from hunters as well as increased repeat buyers next year; the loss of dollars to DNR is well worth both.
Another way to increase benefit would be to have flex seasons. For instance, before Oct. 1 you have to declare the 9 contiguous day window your tag will be valid for during the window of Oct 7 to Nov 1 for an eastern modern firearm mule deer hunter. You could even give 2 windows that add up to 9 days to give even more flexibility. Then, if unsuccessful, you can choose a 5 day window for the late season. This allows hunters to choose when they WANT to go based on when their group CAN go. This would lead to increased sales by hunting camps being able to get together schedule-wise better therefore being able to draw in more of their friends as well as leading to less congestion in the woods on any given day. Win-win for the hunter and state; the only drawback is enforcement period lengthens and the possibility of party hunting, and neither are enough of a problem to not do it.
Increase WDFW's per-region budget for hunter access coordinators. Each region only has one person working on it now, and that's not nearly enough. The landowners in the programs in the SE haven't been able to contact the guy who's supposed to be handling their land because he's too busy. When that landowner runs out of permit forms because they can't get them from him, they just say no more access. This has happened to me personally three times in three years with different landowners. I would have been able to hunt that land, but I was told no because they had no more forms. Yes, it would increase WDFW expenses, but the strides made toward hunter access would help increase the perceived benefit.
Lean on the various National Forest Administrators and DNR to loosen ATV restrictions. Hunters like their ATV's, and less restriction in an area will draw hunters and keep someone on the fence from quitting buying in-state licenses and going to ID where they can use their machine. Keep them restricted to the same roads that vehicles can use, and the harvest rate won't be affected; it may even go down by pushing animals a bit farther from roads a bit sooner in the season.
Post by: stevemiller on June 14, 2014, 09:53:54 PM
Post by: Humptulips on June 16, 2014, 11:40:23 AM
What have they to give away that doesn't cost them? First thought comes to mind is damage control permits. So someone has a bear problem why not make them give up some free access to get the permits? Could be for so many days or for so many hunters. I don't know the formula but the idea is you give them something that doesn't currently cost in return for access.
I know we have something like that in place now but it allows pay to hunt and family only hunts to count. The law needs to be changed so WDFW has something to negotiate with.
If the timber companies have $millions in tree damage why give away the remedy to that problem?
This can go the other way too. Everybody hates the discover pass but we all know it is not going away unless something replaces the money it brings in. Why not give people a discover pass if they buy a certain dollar amount of permits or maybe charge for the depredation hunts but give out a free discover pass. Either way the same money could come in and people might see real value for their dollars.
That would take the sting out of paying for access on DNR land.
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
Post by: stevemiller on June 16, 2014, 06:19:53 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 16, 2014, 06:54:56 PM
Steps to retain or increase access to all landsFrom an LE standpoint instead of increasing fines, how about a mandatory minimum? Realistically the legislature couldn't increase the fine as the laws are written because they would have to make littering (garbage dumping) a felony and I am willing to bet that wouldn't happen.
Education through state publications and web sites
Increase fines for garbage dumping
?
?
Instead, we need to look at mandatory minimums. Littering less than one cubic foot in WA is an infraction which means a simple citation that can be paid, and actually this violation did see it's penalty go from a class 3 infraction to a class 2 infraction this year, so those penalties did increase. Littering between one cubic foot and one cubic yard is a misdemeanor which means you can be fined $0-1,000 and up to 90 days in jail. Over one cubic yard is a gross misdemeanor which equates up to a $5,000 fine and up to 364 days in jail.
Now in addition to the misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor penalties the "The person shall also pay a litter cleanup restitution payment equal to twice the actual cost of cleanup, or fifty dollars ($100 for the gross misdemeanor violation) per cubic foot of litter, whichever is greater. The court shall distribute one-half of the restitution payment to the landowner and one-half of the restitution payment to the law enforcement agency investigating the incident. The court may, in addition to or in lieu of part or all of the cleanup restitution payment, order the person to pick up and remove litter from the property, with prior permission of the legal owner or, in the case of public property, of the agency managing the property. The court may suspend or modify the litter cleanup restitution payment for a first-time offender under this section, if the person cleans up and properly disposes of the litter."
So now what does all this mean?
Well if I go out and litter over a cubic yard of garbage I could face up to a $5,000 fine and 364 days in jail. SCARY :yike: Well don't get so scared because the minimum fine in WA is??? ZERO! And lets say I am a good guy so I go out and pick up the garbage I dumped, now on top of not facing a minimum fine, the court can also suspend the payments to be made to the landowner and the LE agency that investigated the incident.
So what do I think should happen?
Mandatory minimum $250 fine for the misdemeanor violation. Mandatory minimum $500 fine for the gross misdemeanor violation. Remove the ability for the court to suspend the payment to the landowner and the LE agency if you pick up your garbage :twocents:
Post by: stevemiller on June 16, 2014, 07:02:43 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 16, 2014, 07:15:38 PM
I like it BigTex :tup: Make it happen lol :chuckle:.Seriously though how could we get something like you suggest to come about?It would have to come from the legislature. There aren't many in the WA legislature in favor of mandatory minimum criminal penalties and I don't know why. I think if you got enough big landowners to request they remove the ability of the court to remove the cleanup restitution it could pass, but you would need the big names (Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc) to come out and ask for it.
Post by: GUscottie on June 16, 2014, 07:37:43 PM
I like it BigTex :tup: Make it happen lol :chuckle:.Seriously though how could we get something like you suggest to come about?It would have to come from the legislature. There aren't many in the WA legislature in favor of mandatory minimum criminal penalties and I don't know why. I think if you got enlough big landowners to request they remove the ability of the court to remove the cleanup restitution it could pass, but you would need the big names (Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc) to come out and ask for it.
My :twocents: about this (being a city LEO)...It is incredibly difficult to get businesses to do anything with or for the courts. I can get one or two businesses here and there to ask for things from my city council, but try this at the state level and it gets much more difficult. I think that it would take some serious peddling at the big companies doors and then us beating the emails of our legislators pretty darn hard. I'll send an email to my legislator and see what I get...
Post by: bigtex on June 16, 2014, 07:46:21 PM
The big timber companies have been in support and even testified in favor of two recently enacted laws regarding natural resources and private lands. The timber industries were big backers of the law that took effect several days ago banning the use of exploding firearms targets. They were also big backers of the hunting while trespassing law that took effect in 2012.My :twocents: about this (being a city LEO)...It is incredibly difficult to get businesses to do anything with or for the courts. I can get one or two businesses here and there to ask for things from my city council, but try this at the state level and it gets much more difficult. I think that it would take some serious peddling at the big companies doors and then us beating the emails of our legislators pretty darn hard. I'll send an email to my legislator and see what I get...I like it BigTex :tup: Make it happen lol :chuckle:.Seriously though how could we get something like you suggest to come about?It would have to come from the legislature. There aren't many in the WA legislature in favor of mandatory minimum criminal penalties and I don't know why. I think if you got enlough big landowners to request they remove the ability of the court to remove the cleanup restitution it could pass, but you would need the big names (Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc) to come out and ask for it.
Now that being said, even if the mandatory minimum laws are enacted and the restitution suspension is repealed, it still falls on the prosecutor to actually file the gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor charges. You can have stiff penalties, but if the prosecutor isn't filing charges then we are back to sqaure 1 :twocents:
Post by: stevemiller on June 16, 2014, 07:53:48 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on June 16, 2014, 08:20:28 PM
:chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on June 16, 2014, 08:29:45 PM
Agreed,I guess we need to put more pressure on prosecuters to do their jobs instead of always complaining they dont have the funding or the staff.I would think that they would be all for manditory min.Agreed. WA penalties are actually pretty stiff. A misdemeanor at up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail and a gross misdemeanor at up to $5,000 and 364 days in jail are stiff penalties. The problem is prosecutors don't use those penalties. And in my opinon, that's when it's time to come in and force their hand... Mandatory minimums.
Post by: fireweed on June 16, 2014, 08:44:10 PM
Who to get involved: all the usual groups (USFS, DNR, WDFW, non-profits,) Don't forget county road departments that can provide access to landlocked areas or the DOT. Ports often have a recreation component, and even Metropolitian Park districts can develop "parkways" or easements to public lands. The WFPA (Washington Forest Protection Agency) should be brought on board, too. and elected officials)
Issues that cause decrease: less federal logging leading to less road revenue; Conversion of timberlands to REITS only interested in shareholders, not communities; tweekers; difficulty getting easements; weak politicians in the pockets of Big Timber that haven't the guts to bring up the tax breaks timber gets; environmental groups pushing to close roads
To improve access to private lands: Our biggest opportunity to improve access, by far, is to re-vamp the Opens Space and Forest land tax breaks to directly tie access to the tax break (see Wisconsin and Minnesota's laws);
Other ways to improve on private land-- lots and lots of negative PR in the form of letters to editor, TV stories etc. coupled with "feel good" stories from companies that do not charge like Port Blakely ; Formal complaints and Challenges to their SFI certification by communities and leaders (they must provide public recreation and they are supposed to support healthy communities); take the garbage dumping excuse off the table (develop a mechanism so that it costs them ZERO to clean-up garbage); improve the recreational immunity law by removing or tightening the definition of "known, artificial, latent condition"; Damage permits for big game MUST only be issued to large landowners that have free, open public access during the general season for the damaging animal (this may need to go through the legislature, but it is a no-brainer); Special hunts to benefit landowners (spring bear, cow elk, extra deer) should only be issued if the land can be accessed by licensed hunters for free; and don't forget old school political pressure;
To improve access to public lands:
acquire easements through private land to public land; catalog public lands with access issues as proposed in current 2015-2021 game Plan; Challenge the closure of public land to the public (watersheds, etc) improve the grant process and add access projects specifically to RCO grants; use imminent domain if necessary to acquire access to key public lands (WDFW can use this tool for public access DNR can't); add imminent domain to acquire public access to DNR lands, if necessary; work with county and state road Depts to acquire access; Stop turning old roads into un-walkable jungles--keep the road bed and turn roads to trails; More LWCF money (I think 1% was proposed recently) to access federal lands; Key acquisitions for access; find old easements and resurrect them; cost share with private landowners on roads (it is more efficient for the private partner to be the main guy in charge of major projects on a joint road); re-write REIT law so it that tax break doesn't reward companies for charging for access to public wildlife; work with other groups besides hunting; add specific goals concerning access to every plan that comes along-county, city, wildlife, etc. Getting the issue in a "plan" as a goal or objective is the first step to funding. Increase logging to increase funding and keep roads open;
Funding: more federal logging, 1% of Land/water Conservation Fund; partnerships have worked wonders like Trust for Public Lands and RMEF on key acquisitions; redirect some NOVA fund for access as was discussed in last NOVA update; simplify and redirect some WWRP funds to basic easement access from fancy water parks and costly lamp posts; cost sharing and private public partnership on key roads; re-evaluate how much non-highway driving we do to boost NOVA and non-highway road fund; county road departments should play larger role maintaining roads; tax on income from recreational leases and permit fees directed to access; existing excise tax on outdoor equipt could be expanded include hunting access as a use.
Access is complicated and means different things to different folks. take away message is that many tools are going to be needed to improve the situration. There is no silver bullet.
Post by: Special T on June 17, 2014, 09:46:24 AM
While at the same time they are converting old rail road beds to trails in many places! :bash:
It still provides some access, costs NOTHING! Should be the easiest to sell. The main detractors are the wacko Enviro's and Water quality nuts
Post by: bearpaw on June 17, 2014, 11:04:30 AM
The # 1 thing to push IMO to increase access is QUIT FUNDING ROAD DECOMMISSIONS! They are PAYING to destroy a resource That Hikers, Bikers, and sportsmen could use.
While at the same time they are converting old rail road beds to trails in many places! :bash:
It still provides some access, costs NOTHING! Should be the easiest to sell. The main detractors are the wacko Enviro's and Water quality nuts
I know the USFS is decommissioning and removing roads, are there any state agencies doing this?
Post by: Special T on June 17, 2014, 11:10:27 AM
There are a LOT of side effects to stopping logging on USFS land. Less Brows for the deer and elk, but also no $ and less need for the roads that acess them.
Post by: Dhoey07 on June 17, 2014, 01:54:15 PM
I think that there is plenty of access for national forests in this state, although I would like to see some active logging.
State parks has turned me off so much, it's pretty much irreparable.
One entity that I would love to see involved more is the army corps of engineers. They have done some really good stuff with the land they manage on the Snake. They might have a more reliable revenue source :dunno: seems to me that they might. Create an act, where they make a sizable chunk of land and try and see how productive they can make it. Just an idea.
One more thing, I think the hunt by reservation is a great program, I'm not sure how it's funded or what the land owners get in return, but.....
Post by: washelkhunter on June 17, 2014, 02:12:40 PM
Post by: huntrights on June 17, 2014, 04:44:00 PM
The # 1 thing to push IMO to increase access is QUIT FUNDING ROAD DECOMMISSIONS! They are PAYING to destroy a resource That Hikers, Bikers, and sportsmen could use.
While at the same time they are converting old rail road beds to trails in many places! :bash:
It still provides some access, costs NOTHING! Should be the easiest to sell. The main detractors are the wacko Enviro's and Water quality nuts
I know the USFS is decommissioning and removing roads, are there any state agencies doing this?
DNR has been decommissioning roads; this was evident around the Ashford area (GMU 654 Mashel). Ask the locals in Ashford about road closures and decommissioning methods in that area; there are apparently several roads in the area that have been subjected to decommissioning/destruction. The locals do not appear to be very happy about their access being blocked. Places where families camped for decades can no longer be accessed because of the road destruction. WDFW has closed roads in some areas like the LT Murray unit, but WDFW would need to be asked directly if they destroy roads when/if they decommission roads. Both agencies should be asked directly about their road closure and decommissioning policies and practices. A question to ask is why must a road path be completely destroyed by ripping it up, spreading huge boulders along the path, crisscrossing small tree trunks and branches along the road path, etc.? Motorized access can be easily blocked without destroying the roads to the point where it is hazardous for a person to walk on the old path. Leave the road paths alone (i.e. roads to trails philosophy) so they can still be used by human beings (hikers, hunters, anglers. mountain bikers, horseback riders, campers, etc.). Nature will take over quickly without any agency having to spend our money for needless destruction. There are many benefits to adopting the "roads to trails" approach to road closures, but little, if any, benefit to completely destroying the old road paths. It seems the primary purpose of road destruction is to destroy access which will obviously tend to keep people out.
Roads to trails is a far better approach to closing roads versus road decommissioning/destruction.
Post by: fireweed on June 19, 2014, 07:44:22 AM
Post by: csaaphill on June 19, 2014, 02:08:18 PM
We have a local owner here that owns Thousands of acres in our Mountains here and always has no tresspassing signs, It's in some really prime deer and Elk area, but can never get in because of the no tresspasisng. I've talked to the old guy once because I was driving up he road and there was one spot that was feel free to hunt so I did. I drove to the end and then turned around, but while up there he and his Grandson came up there, and if he wasn't so adament about hunters shooting his cows he would probably let us hunt, but no not until we can prove we know what the heck were looking at.
The old guy was actually kind of cool I expained what and why I was there and told him there was a feel free to hunt sign down below so I was using that. he just said to not kill a cow I said ok!
Post by: Landowner on June 19, 2014, 10:31:42 PM
One thing I've encountered with landowners is that they think were only there to shoot up things and kill everything in sight. People that own cows for instance, think all we do is shoot first and ask questions later! I've never mistaken a cow for deer, or Elk. So teaching landowners a different perception would help!
We have a local owner here that owns Thousands of acres in our Mountains here and always has no tresspassing signs, It's in some really prime deer and Elk area, but can never get in because of the no tresspasisng. I've talked to the old guy once because I was driving up he road and there was one spot that was feel free to hunt so I did. I drove to the end and then turned around, but while up there he and his Grandson came up there, and if he wasn't so adament about hunters shooting his cows he would probably let us hunt, but no not until we can prove we know what the heck were looking at.
The old guy was actually kind of cool I expained what and why I was there and told him there was a feel free to hunt sign down below so I was using that. he just said to not kill a cow I said ok!
You make a good point. Too many landowners use the ol' "shooting up my stuff" as a cop out to deny access. I can't think of anyone in the past 20 years in my area who had a cow shot by a hunter.
Post by: huntrights on June 19, 2014, 10:35:55 PM
"The various government agencies (i.e. USFS, BLM, WA DNR, WDFW) that may be involved with road closures or decommissioning apparently use a broad range of criteria and motivations to close and/or decommission roads such as eliminating environmental degradation, reduce impacts associated with motorized access, meet specific management requirements defined in Forest plans or court orders, and avoid long-term road maintenance costs to name a few. Political and legal pressures from various organizations will obviously be a part of the decision process as well.
Depending on the circumstances, road decommissioning may be passive (nature does its thing) to active (mechanical full obliteration, recontouring, and a variety of other actions. People may tend to refer to their personal experiences of coming across a decommissioned road that once provided access to an area as a significant part of forming their opinions of road decommissioning. In cases of full obliteration the access will likely be limited to traversing the terrain cross-country off of the original road path because the original path may be torn up, have boulders and tree debris/cut tree trunks covering the path, and whatever other methods are used to remove the original road from the landscape. Although access may not be totally cut off, it certainly limits access to people that are able and willing to traverse the terrain off of the original road path; others no longer will have access.
According to this paper (National Forest Service Road Decommissioning - An attempt to read through the numbers - 2003 http://wildlandscpr.org/files/FSDecom.pdf ) Nation-wide, the Forest Service is decommissioning an average of 2,038 miles of road per year (system and non-system roads combined) at a cost of $3,911 per mile. Region 6 [Oregon and Washington] also ranked first in system miles per year decommissioned, averaging
312 miles per year. As a region, the average cost-per-mile for road decommissioning was $11,343. [The date range reference appears to be 2000 2002.]
According to this paper (Estimating Costs of Road Decommissions - https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/Salmon_Workshop/7_Coffin.pdf )
The unit cost ($/km) ranged from $1,829 to $14,990 per kilometer for 6 road decommissions evaluated.
A letter on the subject from Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler:
http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/uploadedfiles/janine_clayton_forest_roads_analysis.pdf
Decommissioning a road is not cheap. As an alternative to active decommissioning, the responsible managing agencies should consider the Roads to Trails approach or passive decommissioning as the preferred methods. Active decommissioning is expensive and it tends to destroy reasonable access to the affected areas."