Forest Service Mission Statement

Ed · **Posted:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:38 am

Interesting to note that the National Forest Service Mission Statement does not even contain the word "recreation"! How many people go out of their way to promote a concept that's not in their job description?

Ed

Fred · **Posted:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:57 pm

Wow, Ed, we didn't even think of looking at the mission statement. Good thinking, sir. You are right, couldn't find anything about recreation and multi-use, only as it applies to ecology. For those interested, here is the URL link to the statement - http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml

I think this "discovery" is significant in evaluating whether the FS cares about recreation. Need to think about this and research "multi-use" which the FS throws around quite a bit . . . Fred

Korbe · **Joined:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:42 pm **Posts:** 94

Interesting point about the mission statement.

When I attempt to understand the FS campground history I have noticed around here, for the smaller campgrounds anyway, is that people would camp along a creek or lake within the National Forest and at some point the FS felt that they needed to "regulate" the practice. I don't know if this process was to encourage "recreation" or just to regulate and contain the users of OUR National Forest.

llempart · **Joined:** Mon May 24, 2010 5:14 pm **Posts:** 8

I feel that "regulation", in this case creating specific campsites, was more to contain the negative impact, i.e. water course pollution or litter, than to "regulate" and "contain" the users. Unfortunately not many people know what "leave no trace" means, let alone practice it.

Fred · **Posted:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:58 pm

llempart wrote:

I feel that "regulation", in this case creating specific campsites, was more to contain the negative impact, i.e. water course pollution or litter, than to "regulate" and "contain" the users. Unfortunately not many people know what "leave no trace" means, let alone practice it.

This has been our experience as well. So what now? How do we influence change in this probable reality? We could shove legislation down their [FS] throats (see forum on challenging current fee legislation). Yeah, but if their culture does not include creating recreation opportunities (for the sake of recreation) and efficiently managing them, well . . . So, I guess this so-called multi-use philosophy is only possible if the recreational part of it is out-sourced to concessionaires. True?

kbenzar · **Joined:** Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:31 pm **Posts:** 18

Here's a revealing FS internal memo about recreation strategy from 2000. This was during Fee Demo and before FLREA, and I think clearly shows their policy decision to rely on fees and "partners" i.e. concessionaires, to provide recreation on the National Forests.
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/FS_Rec_Policy_Memo_2000.pdf

They use as one example the American Fork Canyon scenic drive near Provo Utah. There they charge a toll to use a state highway. Under Fee Demo they had that authority, but FLREA should have curtailed that kind of fee, because anyone can see it's an Entrance Fee, which they are prohibited by FLREA from charging. However nothing has changed, the toll booths are still there it's still a fee area. And all the developed facilities are concessionaire managed and cost extra.

Fred · **Posted:** Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:27 am

I'm not going to ask where you get these documents, but they sure are illuminating.

So your interpretation of the memo is that the FS at the upper levels re-directed chunks of the annual Congressional appropriations that should have been received at the ground level. The justification was/is that budget money not received at the ground level by the RDs could be made up through (1) the fee demo (and now FLREA) program and (2) concessionaire participation. That's heavy!

kbenzar · **Joined:** Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:31 pm **Posts:** 18

More evidence that the FS just wants out of the recreation biz is in this article out of Oregon:
http://www.democratherald.com/news/local/article_d2b1862e-2394-11e0-801d-001cc4c03286.html

They are contracting with a County Parks and Rec department to run several FS campgrounds, and accepting as payment 5.3% of the gross. The county keeps the other 94.7%. If the FS managed these campgrounds directly they could keep 100% of the gross. Why does the FS feel compelled to give away all this revenue, whether to a private company or a local government, when the FLREA gave them the authority to keep it?

John13np · **Joined:** Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:27 pm **Posts:** 16

Because where would the FS get the CG host?

CG host would rather get paid at least minimal wage than get nothing to $10 a day which is what the FS is willing to pay.

kbenzar · **Joined:** Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:31 pm **Posts:** 18

Many people prefer the freedom and flexibility of a volunteer gig to the obligation and expectations of a paid one. Fred and Suzi have a whole section of this website devoted to volunteer host opportunities:
http://www.forestcamping.com/dow/host/host.htm

Both paid and volunteer positions are also advertised in RV magazines, through WorkKamper, etc. Yes some people do need and want to get paid, but there are lots of willing souls out there who just want to contribute something to the public lands that they own and are willing to do that in exchange for nothing more than a campsite. It does take a commitment on the part of the agency to recruit, support, and retain volunteers, but if that commitment is there the volunteers will be, too.

And don't forget not every single campground needs to have a host!

John13np · **Joined:** Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:27 pm **Posts:** 16

It's hard to find a good, committed CG host that is willing to work for free. Yes, it happens, especially at the more desirable areas. But at the "less desirable" areas, it's very difficult to find them. And when they do come, they only want to stay for a month or two, and that just doesn't work. I have worked at areas like that, and unfortunately, they were concessionaired off.

Fred · **Posted:** Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:25 am

I can assure all that better than 50% of developed NF campgrounds do not have a host, volunteer or otherwise. And, very few day-use areas have one. So the question remains, why does the FS give away potential earnings? I am formulating some thoughts but am going to wait until after a lot more discussion.

kbenzar · **Joined:** Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:31 pm **Posts:** 18

Quote:

I have worked at areas like that, and unfortunately, they were concessionaired off.

Ah, John13np, you sound like one of those poor naive forest rangers who still think your job is serving the public. I salute you sir, yours is a dying breed.

The fact is that the FS's official policy is to make sure concessionaires stay in place and make a profit. If you were toeing the agency policy line, you would not have put that "un" before "fortunately." You must have missed this memo:

Quote:

Department of Agriculture Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090

File Code: 2330/6230/6500
Date: February 25, 1997
To: Regional Foresters

Subject: Prohibition Against Displacement of Concessions Based On Recreation Fee Demonstration Project

I commend you for your Region's active participation in the Recreation Fee Demonstration. This unique authority is a good example of one strategy we need to carry out our mission in a quality manner with declining resources.

Another strategy is to encourage an expanding role for the private sector in delivering services in national forest settings. Use of concessions is a key tool for providing quality services with declining work forces and capital resources. In addition to providing benefits and services to our customers, concessions also directly contribute to ecosystem protection and enhancements while promoting economic strength and stability in the communities we serve.

To ensure these approaches do not conflict, direction was established guiding selection of each demonstration project. Specifically, our direction is not to displace concessionaires associated with the execution of the fee demonstration test. Several of our trade association partners have contacted my office and members of Congress expressing their concerns that some areas are contemplating modifications of current concession permits, or even not renewing permits, to incorporate a site in the demonstration program.

We must continue to work with our service partners. From the beginning, we indicated we would not displace their operations during this test. Our partners trusted our word. They supported this authority in our local communities and with their congressional representatives. This is a 4-year test during which we will learn more about the potential of a fee system, and we should not disrupt our continuing support for providing services by private concession.

At the same time, both Congress and the Administration have identified the need to reduce the size and scope of Government. How we manage the national forests has shifted. We must effectively utilize our employees as program administrators and adjust to leaner Government.

Ensure this direction reaches each line officer. I encourage your continued support of both of these programs. Each warrant your leadership. We must take advantage of locally retained fees and continue to promote an expanding private sector industry to serve national forest visitors. I ask that each line officer work directly with affected partners, such as our permitees, to develop successful implementation strategies for each demonstration project.

/s/ Mark A. Reimers (for)

MIKE DOMBECK
Chief

Ed · **Posted:** Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:07 pm

Quote:

Welcome to the USDA Forest Service
We are entrusted with 193 million acres of forests and grasslands. It’s a big task, but one that we take seriously. We are dedicated to restore and enhance landscapes, protect and enhance water resources, develop climate change resiliency and help create jobs that will sustain communities.

Chief Tom Tidwell

This is the first item on the USFS website Home Page. I think it illustrates,just like the Mission Statement, the complete lack of interest that management of the Forest Service has in recreational use of the NFs. It shows nothing short of contempt for the needs and interests of a recreational constituency numbering in the millions.
The February issue of Highways (Good Sam Club magazine) has an editorial that supports many of the statements made in this forum. It also talks about the upcoming Planning Rule and opportunity for public input to that document. I am going to try to attach the article but should that fail, visit www.fs.fed.us for opportunities to give your feedback.
Hopefully enough of us will take advantage of this that recreational use will become an important part of the FS agenda.

Ed

ps Depending on your browser, you may have to Save the .pdf attachment before you can open it.

Fred · **Posted:** Sun Jan 23, 2011 1:05 am

This is valuable information, Ed. Thanks for the input! The attachment displayed just fine for me. We'll all try to keep each other informed when the Planning Rule is published by the Forest Service for comment.

Forest Service Mission Statement

Who is online