Access Denied - Closing Our Forests

A very good film a friend forwarded to me. Figure I would post it here. Didn't see a landuse sub-forum like TTORA has.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUhLMi97dg&feature=player_embedded

 

I think "very good" is an overstatement.

Production quality alone is shit. So many jump cuts, slam edits, loose frames, black frames and just out-of context video makes it lose most if not all credibility to the viewer.

The green screen work is atrocious, as are most of the graphics.

Not to mention it's clearly propaganda. $6 Billion a year is nothing to operate a National Parks Service as vast as the United States'. That's why you increasingly see day-use and permit fees. The Ranger staff is a fraction of what it once was, and as parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, Olympics and Denali see ever increased traffic, those funds need to serve the greatest amount of people in the best way possible.

Oh -- and the part about clearing fuel? Do you know how much money is actually saved by these controls, as opposed to the massive expenses of fighting wildfires? Here's a hint: a lot. Then there was the glossed-over part about how private property owners just so happened to pull their own roads from the system.

I feel bad for the loss of open OHV roads in our parklands. But pointing the finger at the NPS is ridiculous. Historically low tax revenues, increased liability concerns, logging lobbyists and reduced private property cooperation are the main reasons why these areas are closing -- with a sprinkle of environmentalists.

Blame your local and national governments for tax cuts, threatened and achieved shutdowns as to reasons why the roads are closing.

 

Critiquing the graphics? Really? Opening your argument with that is not how you prove your credibility.

You wouldn't happen to work for the NPS, would you?

 

I opened my argument with the shittiness of the video's quality. It's a piece of crap.

I guess I could have opened with ridiculousness of the messaged content.

I do not work for NPS, nor do I have any affiliation with NPS. You posted your shitty video on the Internet for the purpose of feedback and you're getting some. If you want to make a statement, do it with professional quality work, equipment and compelling narrative. Don't take a dump on a plate and expect everyone to say what a great meal it is.

Some tips:

Cut the video in at least half. Preferably down to 5 minutes. Almost nobody has the attention span to watch a self-glorification 15 minute epic. Lose the host, he does nothing for your cause. Hire a professional editor. Trim your script to lose all the crybaby shit about how NPS has "billions" of dollars but can't open some OHV roads. Direct your audience to a website to learn more information about your cause in detail.

Right now your message is "We're losing our roads! Waaaaah!" delivered by a guy who looks like a child molester. Change your format to one which includes practical solutions, a call to action to raise awareness, and a method for people to become involved.

Jesus Christ. I just gave you like $1500 worth of advice an ad agency would charge you for.

 

Txs for the "readers digest" version. I work for the Dept of Interior, if the NPS has "Billions of $$$", that is news to me and to congress...

I'm not going to get into an argument, but the money that NPS has is public knowledge. Please look it up, it is not "billions"...

 

I had nothing to do with the production of the video or the people who produced it. Your criticism of it and "tips" are worthless. Not trying to be a jerk about it, but I can't do anything about the vid's quality. Your comments need to directed elsewhere for them to have any worth.

I merely found the vid's content to be of interest and as someone who is in a forestry program and subsequently has a significant amount of exposure to the FS, I found its information to be fairly accurate and interesting. I passed it on for the purpose of the message, not a review on rottentomatoes for its lack of production prowess. If you take issue with the message then by all means debate that and present information for your argument so that I may learn from your prospective on the issue. That would be a post that is worthwhile.

 

http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm. Yes, they do have a billion dollar budget. The FS website puts their budget at $5+billion dollars. Focusing on the FS and not so much the NPS, anyway.

 

Ever heard of earmarks? It's not just the money they get, is how that and what that money is budgeted for.

What I'm saying is, is that it's not like they have a hole bunch of "Monopoly" money to spend as they wish.


You have a beef with how and what the money is allocated for? Then talk to your congressperson, and keep getting involved!

 

Yes, I understand very little is discretionary. I do talk to my congressmen and part of being involved is public discussion, such as this...if the thread ever actually gets on topic.

I'm fine with useful criticism. If the energy that was put into uselessly critiqing the vid had been put into a meaningful discussion of the message, we would all be wiser. Completely misses the point of the post to do otherwise. If the fervor for attacking vid production.was put into providing.info and dialogue about the issue, I would be happy!

 

...

 

Yes, blame Obama for everything!




On a serious note, there was a gate blocking Brown's Camp when I went to TSF last week. Do they usually close it in the winter? There wasn't much snow up there...

 

I've heard of it getting closed in the winter, but rarely. I've only seen trails gated, not the entire area.

 

Yeah the actual entrance to Brown's was gated off.

 

I was responding to the VERY FIRST line of your post. It is, in fact, NOT a very good film and is in fact quite the opposite, and I explained why. I then proceeded to inform you as how to go about making it a "very good film" free of charge in order to help further the aims of your cause.

Again, the FS has a vast responsibility of asset management which they need to operate on what cannot be considered a revenue-generating model. $1-5 billion dollars isn't a great amount considering the cost of paved road upkeep on Forest lands alone. As others stated, if you have a problem with the way funds are allocated, contact your elected officials and produce awareness materials which are better-suited to your aims.

Again, refer to the highlighted section above.

Furthermore, I did go into detail about the inaccuracies and discrepancies in the video in the discussion about fire fuel management and cost dispersement.

So, in closing, here are the take-aways:

1.) Don't call the video "very good," because it's not.

2.) If you choose to post poorly-documented and produced collateral, be prepared for critique and examination.

It is unfortunate, because I actually DO have an interest in Forest Service Roads, dispersed camping and OHV trails. However, this type of propaganda makes me want to distance myself from those who seek to further these recreational activities -- merely from the methods in which the message is delivered. So, when you turn a potential ally into a critic solely upon the quality of your collateral, imagine the effects on those less inclined to pull apart the finer details. In most cases it is apathy, which does nothing to advance your goals.

I also possess a rational understanding of how budget allocations work on a Federal level and how the distribution of funds are weighted toward meeting the needs of the largest contingents of visitors and/or mandated regulations (i.e.; disabilities assistance, etc.)

So if you want to wax intellectual on the topics of Public Land Use, don't throw a steaming pile of shit into a room and not expect someone to come in and say "There's a steaming pile of shit in here!"

Or you can always go back to TTORA, where I guess they have gotten used to the smell of shit.

 

The 15% cut across the board is affecting everyone. DOD, DOE, DOI, ect.

If anything, blame congress for not finding or combining enough brain cells to come up with a solution to the spending problem.

 

Not all DOI is getting budget cuts... My bureau is getting some mad $$$$. In fact our audit/accounting staff will double within 18 months...

 

Where in the video did it mention fire fuel management being related to cost? What I got from the video was the impact the FS had on the forests vs. offroad use. Pulverizing acres of land while closing a road because, presumably its bad for the forest.

My experiences may be different from yours, but the costs of maintaining an OHV trail or even putting one in are not high, or shouldn't be high. And I speak as someone who has helped maintain and put in new OHV trails. The FS only occasionally provides machinery and personnel. The bulk of the work is performed by volunteers from various offroading clubs who provide much of the tools, labor, material, and machinery. The FS generally performs a supervisory role at best.

I understand they do have a limited budget that must be allocated toward the majority of users, who aren't OHV oriented. Just gets old when we are demonized and our needs are considered absolutely last. My personnel experience with them has given me the impression the issue does not lie solely with budgeting issues, but much more heavily on politics. Take a chill pill before you take issue with something. If you are this caustic with a potential ally, I can only imagine the damage you've done with people that are apathetic or actively work against us on land use issues. Honestly, any links you have to broaden my knowledge on the subject would be appreciated. I know actively fighting forest fires is exceptionally expensive, but the fuel reduction method used in the vid is hotly debated on the grounds it may not be the healthiest activity for a forest to suffer. There is also the argument that letting a forest burn is healthy for it. Any take on that angle of the issue?

As I said, I do contact my congressmen. However, there is nothing wrong with putting heat on different sources as well. The FS is hardly the only and most important problem, but it is one.

http://www.riderplanet-usa.com/atv/trails/info/oregon_01711/ride_c781.htm
Guess the campground is closed for the season.

Are you going to KOH? I'm heading down to Johnson Valley Wednesday night. Have a looong drive ahead of me haha.

 

I drove from Portland to San Diego without stopping, you'll be fine.

 

Yea, I did the drive down by myself last year. Its not the worst thing in the world, but def loading up some energy drinks before I head out lol.

 

See, now we're getting toward the middle ground. I agree that it gets old -- for the reasons you state. Especially when OHV roads are majority maintained by volunteers and clubs. I also agree that a lot of it political in nature, as opposed to the needs and desires of the enthusiasts who utilize these assets.

The point of contention I voiced with concern about the fuel clearing is that in the video, it assesses that money spent on the machinery and time for fuel reduction could be better spent on OHV openings. Now, the merits of fuel reduction are debatable on many fronts -- and I am personally in the position of letting nature do its work, and in agreement that a natural-burn is more beneficial to the health of the forest. But I take contention with the video's stance that the funds which go to this process could be better used by opening more OHV roads.

While in an ideal world, fires would be allowed to naturally burn and restore the forests, unfortunately we live in a world where private property and logging industries have a financial stake in the protection of their land and materials. If the FS were to eliminate the fuel removal, they (we) would spend exponentially more in costly firefighting missions than is spent on these programs. So the cost argument is invalid. Now realistically, people should have enough common sense to not build their homes and businesses next to a highly flammable forest -- or purchase the necessary insurance to cover loss -- much in the same vein as living on a flood plain. But when you get enough people with enough expendable money and/or political clout, they tend to have sway over these types of things.

Mostly, I took exception to the way in which you plopped a video down in a post and expected people to a.) watch it and b.) use it as the entire basis for your topic of discussion without further explanation, input or opinion. We are supposed to assume that you support everything stated inside such collateral, despite obvious areas of contention and inaccuracies.

That being the case, the Original Post became not about the topic contained in the video, but about the video itself -- on which I feel I have made my position abundantly clear.

As for the topics of OHV land use, I feel we're pretty much in agreement, but on the validity and impact of the video we very much are not. I personally feel that while the discussion of OHV land use is much-needed and very frequently overlooked or shoved aside, the video does no service to this discussion and in the eyes of individuals or groups who would be swayed to promote this topic, it could very possibly serve as a deterrent. For the most part, people who would support it probably already do so, and it lends nothing to garner additional support.

Again, this is my opinion. But as someone with extensive experience in creating marketing, promotional and educational materials for natural public endeavors, I feel that I have a well-supported argument.

I'm sorry if my criticism comes across as harsh or caustic, but I feel that open, unapologetic critique is the most efficient way of producing collateral which best exemplifies its goals. If you would like, I will gladly be willing to discuss with you in a calm and rational manner methods with which to accomplish this so as to broaden the outreach of this production and help to educate people and organizations who would be interested in supporting these endeavors.