Forest Service "Fee" Program, comments?
Trent D. Sanders
Fee Demonstration Program" in about a dozen Forests around the country, mostly
in the west and California. The purpose of the program is to "test" the
public's
"willingness to pay" for the use of our National Forests.
The program in the Angeles National Forest in Southern California is typical.
A Forest visitor must purchase an "Adventure Pass" to park a car anywhere in
the Forest, at an overlook, picnic ground, camp spot, alongside the road, etc.
"Passes" are $5 per day or $30 for the year. Passes are sold by private
vendors who keep 20% of the revenue generated, the balance to be used for
"projects" within the Forest.
The program is the inspiration of and sponsored by the American Recreation
Coalition, an organizationof corporations including L.L. Bean, REI, The Coleman
Corp., Campgrounds of America, the Disney Corp., and others.
The many detractors [Sierra Club, Audubon Society, numerous state & local
legislative bodies, etc.] claim that this is only an attempt to "privatize" our
National Forests for the eventual economic gain of these corporations. The
Forest Service denies it.
Several organizations have formed to put a halt to this program, WildWilderness
[http://www.wildwilderness.org] and Friends of the Forest
[http://www.friendsoftheforest.org] are but two.
The program has generated a great deal of controversy. Your comments?
Trent D. Sanders
La Canada, Calif
Ketchum, Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:
http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
LAUDSLEY
received in this Newsgroup. I believe sportsmen should be following this issue
very closely.
Personally, I favor the user fees for a couple of reasons. First, I believe
the user fee approach constitutes good public finance. This country
traditionally has pursued the principle of linking taxes or fees to specific
benefits as much as possible. For example, interstate highway systems and the
U.S. Postal Service can be user-financed through fuel taxes and stamps. Taxes
and fees which do not have to be paid by anyone who doesn't actually use the
service are among our least controversial. Unfortunately, for many government
services it isn't possible to identify the beneficiaries and to grant benefits
or services only if they pay. Examples include national defense, law
enforcement and enviromental regulation. In these cases, everyone shares in
paying for the activity regardless of how much each actually benefits from it.
I'm sure we can all think of some "services" of the Federal government that
we've been paying for with our income taxes but feel we could do without.
Services financed with general tax revenues are invariably controversial
because they do not link benefits to financial sacrifice. Someone always winds
up feeling screwed, and everyone feels entitled to say how the money should be
spent.
User fees for recreation in National Forests are both feasible and possible,
and to the extent that user fees link financial sacrifice to benefits, I
believe the user fees are a move in the right direction from the standpoint of
public financing of our National Forests.
Now we come to the part about how much the Forest Service should be charging,
and whether paying user fees confers the status of preferred customers on
recreationists come policy debate time. (I believe it should.) Environmental
groups have always fought against the idea that spending money in National
Forests for grazing or timber cutting should buy influence for ranchers or
lumber companies, but the truth is that money talks. To the Forest Service, a
logger is a paying customer who not only generates some domestic product for
the economy but spreads a little cash around Dept. of Agriculture as well (in
the form of lease payments, at least.) I don't understand why the Sierra Club
and other tree-huggers don't jump at the chance to get into the game as paying
customers doing the same thing. Well, nobody ever said greenies were smart.
But sportsmen don't have to be like them.
Lastly, there's this idea that the National Forests should belong to The
People. I'll go along with that, but I've noticed that The People can afford
$50 for concert tickets and Nikes. If $20 is too much sacrifice for a year's
access to the National Forests, then maybe it isn't of much value to them and
we shouldn't worry about it.
In short, I see the user fee thing as a good thing and would like to see
sportsmen get behind it. Maybe that would lead to the Forest Service and other
government entities (like U.S. Fish and Wildlife) getting behind sportsmen to a
greater extent than we've seen in recent years.
.
Jim Rogers
news:20010514032834...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
<snip>
> Lastly, there's this idea that the National Forests should belong to The
> People. I'll go along with that, but I've noticed that The People can
afford
> $50 for concert tickets and Nikes. If $20 is too much sacrifice for a
year's
> access to the National Forests, then maybe it isn't of much value to them
and
> we shouldn't worry about it.
>
<snip>
Here in Colorado I pay $50 per year for stickers on two cars that allow me
access to the state parks. Guess what? Some parks have additional fees and
stickers. Figure another $10 per year, give or take, depending on where we
go.
While I tend to agree that fees should be paid by the people who consume the
product (as in stamps for mail), I am concerned that the fees for access to
parks and forest lands will someday get completely out of hand.
I can afford the fees, but don't particularly like them. The good news for
me is that they do tend to reduce the crowds. The bad news, for those that
can't afford them (and there are many), is they don't have access.
No perfect solutions. Maybe they should have "No license/fees" days, like
Colorado does for fishing. (Albeit too few, as in once a year.)
Chris Ebert
At most campgrounds you can 'self-register' (drop your money down a slot)
but these passes need to be purchased ahead of time at select locations,
usually during business hours. I've run into situations where I
spontaneously decided to head out into the woods, only to have to wait until
the next morning until I could buy the proper parking permit.
I think there should be some option to buy a daily ( or multi-day permit)
at certain locations, 7/24.
Chris Ebert
Washougal, WA
Alex Vitek
wrote:
>No perfect solutions. Maybe they should have "No license/fees" days, like
>Colorado does for fishing. (Albeit too few, as in once a year.)
It probably would not work for hunting. Hunting licenses usually
require a Hunter Education class and somehow I just do not see the
various states allowing just anyone to go out into the fields and
forests to try hunting.
Alex
* Spinner of the WWWeb Page at:
* http://www.well.com/user/amv/amv.htm
* ale...@ix.netcom.com
Anthony Osuna
> As most of us already know, the Forest Service has begun a "Forest
Adventure
> Fee Demonstration Program" in about a dozen Forests around the country,
mostly
> in the west and California. The purpose of the program is to "test"
>From what I've seen, there is a ground swell of protest against this
program. Nobody I know is willing to pay for something we already own. I
have told the forrest service to give me the ticket, I'm not buying the
pass. Guess what, not a ticket yet. In fact, in the Los Padres forest they
have forl the most part stopped issuing tickets to non-pass holders.
> The program in the Angeles National Forest in Southern California is
typical.
> A Forest visitor must purchase an "Adventure Pass" to park a car anywhere
in
> the Forest, at an overlook, picnic ground, camp spot, alongside the road,
etc.
> "Passes" are $5 per day or $30 for the year. Passes are sold by private
> vendors who keep 20% of the revenue generated, the balance to be used for
> "projects" within the Forest.
What projects? This is the question I ask the F.S. everytime they try to
ticket me. All they do is close down access roads and camp grounds. I had
one F.S. employee tell me that they have upgraded toliets in some of the
campgrounds. WOW that is a great use of money, now people can crap in
comfort. There are no new campgrounds or opening of closed campgrounds. It
is getting more and more dificult to get to the jumping off points to my
hunting spots because of closed roads and campgrounds. Now instead of a mile
or two to my start points, I have to walk in some cases 4 to 5 miles. When I
relay this to F.S. personal, they reply, "get a horse". Wow new toliets and
great advice for $30.00 a year. I've yet to research the actual
expenditures, but I can bet that the greatest portion goes to adminastration
expenses, not the forest itself.
> The program is the inspiration of and sponsored by the American Recreation
> Coalition, an organizationof corporations including L.L. Bean, REI, The
Coleman
> Corp., Campgrounds of America, the Disney Corp., and others.
Gee, Disney Corp. They do alot for hunting and gun owners. I don't want to
be apart of anything they endorse.
> The many detractors [Sierra Club, Audubon Society, numerous state & local
> legislative bodies, etc.] claim that this is only an attempt to
"privatize" our
> National Forests for the eventual economic gain of these corporations. The
> Forest Service denies it.
>
Sure, they don't want anybody in "THEIR" forest.
Anthony Osuna
The Rock Garden
> wrote:
>
> >No perfect solutions. Maybe they should have "No license/fees" days,
like
> >Colorado does for fishing. (Albeit too few, as in once a year.)
Then "Alex Vitek" <ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b03b5d8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> It probably would not work for hunting. Hunting licenses usually
> require a Hunter Education class and somehow I just do not see the
> various states allowing just anyone to go out into the fields and
> forests to try hunting.
But the state could waive/reduce the license fees for kids up to a given age
who have completed the hunter ed course, and require that they be accompied
by a licensed adult. The kids coming on is where the future of the sport
lies; if we lose them, we will lose the sport...
Skip
Skip & Christy Hensler
THE ROCK GARDEN
Newport, WA
http://www.povn.com/rock/
Nels Hansen
news:9dot4g$4n62$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> Trent Sanders Wrote:
> > As most of us already know, the Forest Service has begun a "Forest
> Adventure
> > Fee Demonstration Program" in about a dozen Forests around the
country,
> mostly
> > in the west and California. The purpose of the program is to "test"
>
> >From what I've seen, there is a ground swell of protest against this
> program. Nobody I know is willing to pay for something we already own.
I
> have told the forrest service to give me the ticket, I'm not buying
the
> pass. Guess what, not a ticket yet. In fact, in the Los Padres forest
they
> have forl the most part stopped issuing tickets to non-pass holders.
>
> typical.
> > A Forest visitor must purchase an "Adventure Pass" to park a car
anywhere
> in
> > the Forest, at an overlook, picnic ground, camp spot, alongside the
road,
> etc.
> > "Passes" are $5 per day or $30 for the year. Passes are sold by
private
> > vendors who keep 20% of the revenue generated, the balance to be
used for
> > "projects" within the Forest.
>
to
> ticket me. All they do is close down access roads and camp grounds. I
had
> one F.S. employee tell me that they have upgraded toliets in some of
the
> campgrounds. WOW that is a great use of money, now people can crap in
> comfort. There are no new campgrounds or opening of closed
campgrounds. It
> is getting more and more dificult to get to the jumping off points to
my
> hunting spots because of closed roads and campgrounds. Now instead of
a mile
> or two to my start points, I have to walk in some cases 4 to 5 miles.
When I
> relay this to F.S. personal, they reply, "get a horse". Wow new
toliets and
> great advice for $30.00 a year. I've yet to research the actual
> expenditures, but I can bet that the greatest portion goes to
adminastration
> expenses, not the forest itself.
>
Recreation
> > Coalition, an organizationof corporations including L.L. Bean, REI,
The
> Coleman
> > Corp., Campgrounds of America, the Disney Corp., and others.
>
want to
> be apart of anything they endorse.
>
local
> > legislative bodies, etc.] claim that this is only an attempt to
> "privatize" our
> > National Forests for the eventual economic gain of these
corporations. The
> > Forest Service denies it.
> >
>
> Anthony Osuna
I've also heard they reduce the balance of the budget so total $$$ to
work with are not increased by the fee program. Don't know if this is
true, but sure wouldn't doubt it. I also have not noticed any really
worthwhile improvements to facilities because of the fee program.
------------------------------------------
Nels Hansen
in beautiful Central Oregon
------------------------------------------
BIL...@webtv.net
worry about.
Bill