Jerry Apa says Game Fish and Parks isn’t taking public input on the proposal to turn Spearfish Canyon into a state park. Game Fish and Parks begs to differ:
A vital part of the master plan is input from the public and area stakeholders. By participating in the process, residents, business owners, community organizations and even visitors to these areas can offer ideas and recommendations to assist in establishing a plan and comment on the concepts developed during the planning process. Throughout the master planning process, there will be a variety of ways to participate [“Public Involvement,” SD Game Fish and Parks, retrieved 2017.01.06].
GF&P says it will hold four public meetings on the proposed Spearfish Canyon State Park. GF&P has scheduled the first meeting for Thursday, January 26, 5:30 p.m. at the Spearfish Park Pavilion, 115 S. Canyon St.
If you’re keenly interested in advising GF&P on the Canyon, you can apply to join the Spearfish Canyon Volunteer Advisory Committee, a group of up to 20 people GF&P will select to advise GF&P as it develops the master plan. GF&P requires VAC members “consider and respect other member’s [sic] perspectives throughout the process” as they “meet with the consultants to help identify issues and trends, and to formulate and base recommendations on a balanced perspective that considers funding, staffing, resource needs and community desires.” GF&P emphasizes the Advisory in Volunteer Advisory Committee:
The Committee will be an advisory group and not a decision-making body. The VAC will not be asked to formally approve or disapprove of an action, proposal or of the Plan itself. The Committee will be representative of the public, and will voice any public concerns and/or issues that are relevant to the planning process [SD Game Fish & Parks, “Spearfish Canyon Volunteer Advisory Committee Structure and Membership Expectations,” January 2017, p. 4.].
VAC meetings will be open to the public. GF&P plans to meet with its VAC five times through July, take public comment for 30 days, then deliver a final plan in September.
Sounds to me that the GFP has already made up it’s mind about the Park and is just asking for suggestions to appease the public.
My advice is to quit spending taxpayer dollars on unnecessary projects while the governor can only find enough money in the budget for a 1% increase for education.
Mr. Larson, with the state of things I think the 1% might be a bit high. It’s way higher than what the law bills say the education should probably get. I bet you they would be going backwards otherwise.
I have applied to be an advisor on the park. I expect I will be picked.
Grudz, 1% isn’t high, but one would have to be high on something to prioritize spending money on a park that the feds already maintain for us over spending money on the educational needs of our South Dakota children. That’s not to mention the fact that there will be ongoing operational and maintenance costs if the state takes it over.
Why does state government fund all manner of pet projects and starve education funding?
I’m guessing if you left a 1% tip for your waitress at Talley’s, your gravy taters would be cold on your next visit.
It’s how GFP has always done business. Develop the idea and concept, then develop and plan to develop and implement the idea, and when all of that is fully fleshed out and everybody internally agrees, then they toss it out to the public and say, give us some ideas and recommendations on how we can make this better………… and oh, by the way, dissolving the plan and not doing the project is not an idea or a good recommendation. It’s always been this way.
Mr. Larson, I learned my lesson on breakfast tipping many many years ago. I tip the waitresses well and they usually provide great service without talking to me too much, which I appreciate. I tip them just fine for it. But I don’t pay more for the actual breakfast going into Talley’s pockets than required by the bill. If we give schools 1% aren’t we giving them more that what our law bills really say we should?
John W., the idea that opposition is not welcome on the VAC seems a clear subtext to the app materials. I wonder how the GF&P will respond if the public meetings uncover more opposition than support.
Of course, the surest way to change GF&P’s mind is to get Senator Ewing, Rep. Johns, and Rep. Turbiville to lobby Appropriations and make sure no money goes to the project.
RC Journal had a story indicating SD was going to pay a Montana company $200,000 to produce a park plan for Spearfish Canyon expansion.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/312582-house-gop-moves-to-ease-federal-land-transfers
RCJ is out with the purchase agreement that spared fees. http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/no-fee-pledge-haunts-spearfish-canyon-state-park-plan/article_d3b6b37c-351b-535a-a4f7-98b23340f208.html
The far bigger problem than fees is the unequal value of the lands for the proposed exchange. Prairie lands in Jones and Lyman Counties have nowhere near the value of Spearfish Canyon and Bismark Lake lands. And the exchanged lands would go to national grasslands – not adding to the Black Hills National Forest. The proposal should have traded state lands in the Black Hills, including that northwest piece of the park that is surrounded by the Black Hills National Forest.
If the state wants development in Spearfish Canyon it should use its titled-right-of-way to extend the Mickelson Trail to Spearfish from Lead, to the Engelwood to Sugarloaf Trailheads – or both. The State should extend the Mickelson Trail from Deadwood to Whitewood, then to Sturgis. That would be development that local communities will support (despite the 1 nimby whiner). Trails increase property values and are low cost recreation that still fill the motel rooms and restaurants.
No one thinking or with public input wrote this exchange proposal and it must die.
Cory: In order to get a better understanding of just how GFP and some of state government manage these so called public input processes go to the IPM web site and study the philosophy. http://consentbuilding.com/
There is no random to the process and it is all structured to sell an idea or persuade and move an opponent to a minimum of a neutral position. It is all based on the notion that what is being proposed is good for everybody and the only reason that opponents are adversarial is because they are poorly informed and don’t have the same “long term” vision as the agency or proponents. Once some opponents are sold on the idea, then there is an assumption that all opponents are sold and opposition goes away. The public input process is a highly structured, procedurally outlined and methodic process that systematically removes oppositional arguments by attrition.
The primary problem with this is that the idea and proposal starts with politicians and special interests and is then almost totally fleshed out and carved in stone before anybody actually learns about it. By then, the bureaucratic assumption is that their idea and concept is the only worthwhile one and the public doesn’t have any better idea. The other assumption is that the public has alternative suggestions or ideas to make the proposal more viable but they don’t have the position or where with all to say that the original idea is a bad one or that they don’t want it. From that point, they will load public input groups with people whom they believe can either be sold or are more “reasonable” in their opposition. Senator Craig Teizsen is a good example. He has publicly said that he isn’t altogether enthused about the proposal but believes that it deserves more exposure, examination and discussion which does nothing except perpetuate the already divisive public input process. These focus groups are assembled under the presumption that selected applicant members understand and are more qualified to discuss proposals moreso than the average citizen is. If I were to apply for a position on this group as an example, with a formal education in Parks and Recreation/Wildlife Management, and over 40 years of experience in both diciplines as well as intimate knowledge of the Black Hills and Spearfish Canyon, I might be considered a good candidate if it wern’t for experience and knowledge of how the process works and common knowledge of my opposition to the proposal.
The executive branch of state government is neither democratic in process or objective in thinking. They assume, in all circumstances, that the public puts them there to lead and develop programs according to their wisdom and expertise and when they recognize a controversial boulder in their path, they will turn inside out and upside down to find ways to remove the boulder rather than determine that the pathway to the dream is a dead end.
Historically, there has always been great fear that the legislature would seize complete control of GFP’s budget and leave the Commission with less authority. There have been several times in the past 30 years when bills have been introduced to do just that but thus far, none has been successful. Ideally, GFP’s budget should remain under the control of the Commission but somehow, the Commission and it’s authorities must be distanced from the whims of partisan politics and this “kingdom building” that has become the hallmark of State Government in recent years. The Rounds and Daugaard Administrations have completely prostituted the mission and purpose of the Department of Game, Fish and Parks and the Commission has been an accessory to that. GFP has changed it’s mission statement as many times as people change socks and none of those changes match the mandates and purposes outlined in statute law. The agency was once suppose to be the consummate steward of our natural history and resources. No more……….. Its all about exploiting it for fun and profit as an extension of tourism and economic development.
Right on John W.
Other people who think John W is right on can be found at this new Facebook page: Spearfish Canyon Land Grab.