Originally Posted By Glenn
I'm not naive enough to think that my letter carried any weight, but I found it interesting that, about two years later, they eliminated the road to the Double Arch trailhead completely and made the hike to it about 3 miles longer by starting it at Auxier Ridge. The reason they gave was overuse.


I'm on a mailing list that the NSF maintains for the Ava district for the Mark Twain NF. When they are proposing any changes in the way this district is managed they send me a letter informing me of the proposed changes. Usually they have a list of options, with one being designated as that which they intend on implementing. They also provide info on how to submit feedback to the proposals. I'm pretty sure that every district must maintain such a list.

My experience is that they do listen, and often times do respond with a change in their proposed and implemented plans, so I wouldn't be too sure your letter didn't sway them.

I will say that limiting accessibility is, in my opinion, the least desirable option to prevent misuse and overuse. We pay a lot of money to maintain our public lands and insisting on access is not demanding too much for our money, nor is insisting on law enforcement where and when it is required. That, and maintenance, is what we are paying for.

_________________________
--

"You want to go where?"