|
mattd
|
Re:DCNR SCORP - 2009/06/03 09:47
They did seem to be throwing around a bunch of terms, but they had no clue how to define them. It scares me that the people putting together this plan can't define terms such as trail and "green".
I also asked them many times about the inter-agency cooperation and they had no specifics. I hate to say it but at this point it feels like an empty idea. I also questioned them about intra-agency cooperation. How many times have we seen DCNR take an action (I'm thinking mostly bulldozers and chainsaws) that has had a dramatic impact on a recreational opportunity? How can they work within themselves to fix those issues?
What bothers me about the lack of mention of state forest land is that they are not even giving it the opportunity to be a central part of recreation. Isn't most of this plan based on a survey of state park users? In their book state forest land is a place for them to extract resources. And until it is viewed by a lot of people in some other light, it is going to stay the same course. Fostering some further use of those lands can be nothing but positive for future protection. But maybe this would run against their objectives for the land?
|
