Support MA parks

[digger]

http://devalpatrick.com/issue.php?issue_id=7577164
Can't hurt to vote for this issue!

[Superb Man]

I don't know--since 2001 our (NEMBA_MOUNTAIN BIKERS AND TRAILS)) in MA parks has increased greatly as has our regional prestige and legitimacy and I think this is correlated with the 30 percent budget decrease. Frankly, the parks rely more heavily on motivated, well-funded volunteer groups than ever before and they are eager for our park Pass Purchases and fund raising events and have traded a great deal of trail access to get these things. This is a good thing.

Honestly-I don't think they need the money-the parks look great and they're are plenty of motivated groups (like NEMBA) willing to pick up the slack--and, more importantly-we pick up the slack in a way very beneficial to our specific desires of state land use.

The present funding situation of our state parks has done wonders for our leverage with our regional state parks (in fact, the better funded a park is-along with being employee and excessive 'red tape' heavy-the less access and influence nemba generally has-in my experience anyway). The More beholden the state park is to volunteer groups for maintenance, project completion and park visits, the more influence those volunteer groups will have in those parks.

So-simply put-as a nemba memeber and officer, tax payer, and citizen--I DON'T back this extra 10 million dollar request and I encourage others to do the same.

Liam

[digger]

I wonder how many others share the opinion that DCR has adequate resources and staff to adequately maintain park and forest facilities. Might the condiitions in your area be different than those in Eastern MA?

[Superb Man]

I wonder how many others share the opinion that DCR has adequate resources and staff to adequately maintain park and forest facilities. Might the condiitions in your area be different than those in Eastern MA?


Yeah, you're section gets more money and more staffing per acre than western, MA (I know, welcome to democratic politics). But our access is better and our PM's rely on us (and other volunteer groups) more and, consequently, treat us very well.

As to people sharing my opinions-who knows--I would think among our organizations members the knee-jerk response is 'yeah, we need to increase the money going to our parks..' like you initially posted "Can't hurt to vote for this Issue".

But, this is exactly the sort of general perception that gets those disastrous "Wilderness" legislation bills signed into law--who doesn't want to preserve the land, right? But, when we find out that preserving the land means banning the pluraliy of recreational (tax paying, volunteer working) users it becomes a lot clearer as to how this seemingly positive legislation can actually be a negative. Right in our region a whole new batch of funding is coming for the relocation of the beloved M&M Trail closer to the Quabbin watershed--sounds great--but, this will, if other Quabbin rules and use-history are instructive lead to the severe limiting of various recreational use (especially bikes) on this trail--furthermore, the existing trail--which from Amethyst Brook to Mount Grace is pretty fantastic (and open to a host of users)-will see the diversion of funds and efforts towards it's maintenance.

Here's how I see state of our parks; I visit a number of them often-work in many of them and spend a decent amount of time hob-knobing with their Pm's and crews.

1. The Trail systems are in great shape and well maintained-and even when unforseen events like tornadoes tear through-volunteer groups get them up to shape in days.

2. Access for Biking is Fantastic!! Honestly-there are an unbelievable amount of biking opportunities on state/ public land all across massachusetts. The number of trails and the quality of these trails has done nothing but go up since 2001 (especially after the defeat of the ORV bill--remember that?). From Lynn, to Bachelor St to TOT to Vietnam, Leominster, Yokun Ridge, Wendell-etc-awesome...And, I think it will only continue to expand as long as these state parks are beholden to our free trail maintainance, construction, Park pass purchasing, and munificent events.

3. I'm sorry, I have yet to see one of these park employees be 'overtaxed" with work. The busy places with camping and swimming like Erving, DAR, and Lake Wyola are well-staffed (and fairly self-sustaining in terms of cash)-the other less intensively utilized parks really need very little in order to run--in fact, I'd bet they could significantly reduce staffing at many of these forests where most of the work comes from volunteers anyway.

And if the request for more money includes the addition of another layer of regional administrator I guarantee you it will be a problem for mountain biking..you can take that one to the bank...the more "heads and supervisors" you need to 'coordinate' with in the public sector the less likely you're going to get anywhere!

[BigMac]

3. I'm sorry, I have yet to see one of these park employees be 'overtaxed" with work. The busy places with camping and swimming like Erving, DAR, and Lake Wyola are well-staffed (and fairly self-sustaining in terms of cash)-the other less intensively utilized parks really need very little in order to run--in fact, I'd bet they could significantly reduce staffing at many of these forests where most of the work comes from volunteers anyway.

I can't even respond, you know what I mean.

[BigMac]

Well I have mixed feelings, wheras I can see some money being allocated to scattered parks in the regin (for improvements)or to existing facilities that actually draw in the public. I can not see more money for more workers IE. rangers, etc. many of these parks you can arrive at any givin time and find not 1, or 2 but 3 or 4 or even 5 people (state funded employees) with nothing to do.
Same as many other fields in our working world today....spread some of the people out to fill positions rather than wasting more money.

The free trail maintainance that the Bulk of these parks recieve do a great percentage of the work. The problem is the "State" does not know this.

Don't get me wrong I support the state parks but..... not to hire more people to sit around or simply patrol large areas that are undeveloped or unused. As I said before if they need the body's then they should consider transfering rather than spending.

[Slappy]

$10M could maybe cover some enforcement to keep the farking quads off the trails. :mad:

[BigMac]

some people can't be bothered! no names mentioned.
Mark.

[pk]

Here's a video from WBZ news about some of the reasons park supporters are looking to increase funding for state parks.

http://wbztv.com/video/?id=29735@wbz.dayport.com

pk