HikeArizona.COM

chumley wrote:A permit system (free) must be implemented limiting the number of people who can use the area each day. Both at the springs and downstream where the road accesses the creek. It's the only way.

Sounds like your wish is coming true...this video mentions Fossil Springs will be going to a permit system.

http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/lo ... /28831483/

chumley wrote: I sometimes wonder if the rangers sit around the office and see who can come up with the best stories to tell people.

So what's the story you've heard? $1M is pocket change for road maintenance, that equipment is not cheap. The road has been closed to the public since 11/2011 and will be closed until 4/2017 (at least). Long time for a road study.

$1 million per year for maintenance on that road seems a little far fetched, IMO. Maybe $1 million on renovations like guard rails to make it safer, but that would be a one time thing. I only drove that section of the road once 10 years ago and remember it being a little unnerving at times, so I could see some things being done to mitigate exposure factors and what not. I have a hard time believing the TNF spends $1 million per year on all its FS roads.

Here's the latest from the Payson Roundup (newspaper).

http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2015/ ... sil-creek/

I would be severely disappointed if they don't follow Aravaipa's Model....What I've read here isn't going to solve much...

The last thing needed is to open the road from Strawberry back up. The plan to make people hike further from the Camp Verde side is a good start. Permits and a reasonable fee like Aravaipa are probably needed as well.

Aravaipa attracts a different crowd and is managed by the BLM. Blocking nearby access seems like a better guarantee at protecting this public asset. Permits can work. It's not going to be as easy as Aravaipa with spot checks

BLM has more $ than the FS does. I don't think the FS has any real desire to administer a permit system. I hope I'm wrong. I definitely think that closing the roads that access the area is the first step. And 2 miles isn't far enough.

The article keeps referencing some kind of partnership. That is code for "somebody else's money". The example given is of Slide Rock State Park being a partnership with the FS. In my opinion that is a great example of why NOT to do that. How many times a year is Slide Rock closed because of levels of fecal matter in the water exceeding safe levels? :yuck:

The FS brought this upon themselves by not having a management system in place when the power plant was decommissioned and the flow returned to the creek. Now it doesn't matter what they decide to do--the result will make a lot of people unhappy. Lack of foresight has put them in a no-win position.

So since they will piss people off regardless of what is decided, let's hope the forest manager has the political cojones to make the best decision for the creek.

I know I am late to the party on this one, however, I cant help but think my triplog from a month ago had something to do with this

Final Sentence:

I know this would be very unpopular, but I would advocate a permit system for that area or an entire closure of area. It truly is a "natural wonder" and I fear for its future

article on fossil creek in the arizona republic this morning:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/travel/l ... /29361541/

Surprisingly well written and informative coming from the AZ Repugnant.

I wonder if haz member ron dungan will click "like this" on the above post? ;)