Activism Change

Fee Demo Project

Question:

MY carelessness, Tonu was quoting me. I was referring to NFS/BLM personnel in general. FMI, the Federal greenies carrying weapons are all ‘Rangers’ tho, aren’t they?

                        No.  Not all.

Response:

I didn’t mean to imply that these are the most important of NFS responsibilities, just evidence they aren’t doing even the simple things.

In my experience, and I hope in general, FS personnel *are* trying to do the valuable work within the system (and there are systemic limits) to preserve public lands.  Even far from the "battle zones" where really contentuous policy implementation meets the "road",– with threats and bombings of offices, vehicles, and homes,– FS workers are keenly aware that they may be targets.  We need as allies these people who influence the policies from within the organization, interpret, and implement policies… If there are gross inefficiencies within the system, and necessary projects are not being undertaken, then clearly we need to point out those problems and lobby through our public agencies and representatives to correct them. I don’t think it’s a stronger argument, just one of several.

True, there are a number of arguments against the continuation and expansion of the Fee Demo program.  Problem is, by focusing on the expectation of "developed" facilities or services commensurate with the fee paid, we may inadvertently reinforce the argument that more  development is the appropriate tract. Jon Meinecke net.subtle-apteryx

Response:

Within the context of the popular belief that privatization is *the* solution to many government inefficiancies, the argument is well made that the Fee Demo project may be the thin end of a wedge for enabling more commercial, more profitable development.

Jon: that ‘thin wedge’ is everywhere. Here in Ontario we had a consensus discussion about land use called "Lands for Life". *All* the affected parties were co-opted into discussing the future of our Crown Lands; The loggers, the environmentalists, the outfitters, the provincal government, the northern area residents. It was all *compromise* — we’ve logged our allotment but can’t you just be *fair* and divide the unused areas? Many well known environmentalist groups (I won’t name them— overall I think their hearts are in the right place) joined the discussion naively. More parkland was allocated — the fine print was missed. For example: If the residents affected by a new park wanted hunting, it would be allowed — now one Provincial minister is saying (off record agreement with the Hunting and Fishing Federation to get them to agree with the final policy statement) that if area residents wish, then hunting will be allowed in the long established parks, Quetico, Killarney,and other parks not discussed in the original consensus building. Gee, hunters lug out 400 KG of moose without ATVs? Since we now allow hunting, we should also allow motorized transport —- next roads, and on it goes. Luckily the premier is on record stating this will never happen and claims his minister mis-spoke. Even more luckily the affected northern residents seem unwilling to go along with hunting in these (somewhat) pristine parks. Some of our wilderness parks allow no motorised vehicle entry (historic exceptions excluded — some motorboats and float planes are allowed in all of our parks). There is some pressure to allow motor-boats for the physically impaired — why shouldn’t they enjoy Algonquin? Again we have a ‘thin wedge’ for a ‘feel good’ cause. In Algonquin Park there are some ‘grandfathered’ resorts. Their land leases were to expire in 2017. Several years ago they approached the government for extensions — using their designated consultant’s recomendations the province decided (two days ago) that they could keep their leases until 2060 if they paid based on a percentage of total revenue— normal ops in most park areas in Canada. Now the screaming has started — unfair exploitation of their generations of effort in building their businesses, yada, yada. Enough spleen for this evening.

Response:

Again, the representation of Forest Service personnel as "lazy", any more than any other group of workers, is in my opinion and experience, unfair and unwarranted.  And there are issues other than trash pickup and daily maintenence that FS personnel may be involved in, whether present in visitor centers or working within the organization.  Just because some FS employee is not operating a backhoe or picking up trash, doesn’t mean that that person is not doing valuable work. With respect to "how many workers does it take to fill a pot hole?", — that’s a broader issue and not one particular to the FS.

I wouldn’t say NFS lazier than anyone else. The easiest thing is doing as little as you can get away with, and that’s what most people will do. They need to do more. Of course not everyone needs to run a hoe or pick up trash, but these are obvious things that need doing. If they are not being done, what reason do I have to believe that other more "valuable work" is being done instead? I didn’t mean to imply that these are the most important of NFS responsibilities, just evidence they aren’t doing even the simple things. You left out the rest of the tonu aun quote,(below) which is not supporting your ‘hooray for profit’ contention in the least! What?  Perhaps I didn’t make the point clearly.  There’s no "hooray for profit" contention with respect to conservation and public lands use from me.  The progression suggested by opponents to the Fee Demo (which I consider myself) is one of moving from seemingly innocuous fee-for-use, to a drive to develop more profitable uses.  I find nothing to cheer about with that result!

It’s clear now. Within the context of the popular belief that privatization is *the* solution to many government inefficiancies, the argument is well made that the Fee Demo project may be the thin end of a wedge for enabling more commercial, more profitable development. This constitues a stronger fundemental arguement against the Fee Demo program than simply saying one shouldn’t have to pay to use public lands for which no fee was previously charged or on which improvements do not seem to warrant such fees…

I don’t think it’s a stronger argument, just one of several. Don               to email remove the ‘u’ from ‘donuts’

Response:

There is some evidence of change from within the USDA/FS. The multiple use, manage public lands for production (minerals, timber, livestock, etc…) imperative is slowly shifting both from the top-down and the grassroots-up of the FS. Mighty slow from the ‘top down’.

True, but change *is* occurring,– though not fast enough for my tastes. For instance, local National Grasslands (managed by FS) in my area are being shifted from an emphasis on beef production to one of restoration and preservation.  Some of the inertia results from the "permanent government" (i.e. mid-level bureaucracy), but a large portion results from policy historically influenced by development interests (logging, grazing, mining, commercial recreation, etc…) I know what I could accomplish with a backhoe, a couple of workers and a pickup. I’ve been to many, many primitive campsites and dispersed areas and have seen almost NO maintenance. I HAVE seen lots of personnel in developed areas, with 3 doing the work of one. What is so preposterous about using that expensive equipment and picking up trash?

donut wrote previously:     "I’m not buying the idea that there isn’t adequate funding in the     NFS ‘general fund’ for minimal maintenance of primitive sites/areas.     I’ve seen too many rangers sitting on their butts in multimillion dollar     ‘visitor centers’. They should be out picking up trash and grading     those dispersed sites." Again, the representation of Forest Service personnel as "lazy", any more than any other group of workers, is in my opinion and experience, unfair and unwarranted.  And there are issues other than trash pickup and daily maintenence that FS personnel may be involved in, whether present in visitor centers or working within the organization.  Just because some FS employee is not operating a backhoe or picking up trash, doesn’t mean that that person is not doing valuable work. With respect to "how many workers does it take to fill a pot hole?", — that’s a broader issue and not one particular to the FS. This progression seems entirely plausible and fits nicely with the popular position that private industry can do many/most operations more efficiently than government agencies. You left out the rest of the tonu aun quote,(below) which is not supporting your ‘hooray for profit’ contention in the least!

What?  Perhaps I didn’t make the point clearly.  There’s no "hooray for profit" contention with respect to conservation and public lands use from me.  The progression suggested by opponents to the Fee Demo (which I consider myself) is one of moving from seemingly innocuous fee-for-use, to a drive to develop more profitable uses.  I find nothing to cheer about with that result! Within the context of the popular belief that privatization is *the* solution to many government inefficiancies, the argument is well made that the Fee Demo project may be the thin end of a wedge for enabling more commercial, more profitable development. This constitues a stronger fundemental arguement against the Fee Demo program than simply saying one shouldn’t have to pay to use public lands for which no fee was previously charged or on which improvements do not seem to warrant such fees… Jon Meinecke net.subtle-apteryx

Response:

There is some evidence of change from within the the USDA/FS. The multiple use, manage public lands for production (minerals, timber, livestock, etc…) imperative is slowly shifting both from the top-down and the grassroots-up of the FS.

Mighty slow from the ‘top down’.   The representation by another contributor in this thread of FS personnel as "lazy" is, in my opinion and experience, unfair and unwarranted.  The suggestion that FS employees all should be "out picking up trash and grading [...] sites", if offered seriously, speaks for itself…

I know what I could accomplish with a backhoe, a couple of workers and a pickup. I’ve been to many, many primitive campsites and dispersed areas and have seen almost NO maintenance. I HAVE seen lots of personnel in developed areas, with 3 doing the work of one. What is so preposterous about using that expensive equipment and picking up trash? [...] (tonu aun quote) First: user pays the costs rather then the public at large. Second: we now have a new policy. Third: some uses can’t pay the freight. Fourth: change the use to one that’s profitable.. This progression seems entirely plausible and fits nicely with the the popular position that private industry can do many/most operations more efficiently than goverment agencies.

You left out the rest of the tonu aun quote,(below) which is not supporting your ‘hooray for profit’ contention in the least! "….What is being done, is the purpose of wilderness has been conveniently  left out of the discussion. If immediate profit (or cost cutting) gains total ascendancy we will rapidly loose what little wilderness we still have."   — Don               to email remove the ‘u’ from ‘donuts’

Response:

Luckily some private lands are now being placed in legally binding ecological conservatories

There was some coverage recently of efforts to obtain pledges or contracts from large land owners in Montana or Wyoming to discourage development.  For some ranchers, the stigma of working with "tree-huggers" has become tolerable when the alternative is seeing largely open undeveloped lands be subdivided and developed. [...] We still have a frontier mentality — land is only worth something if developed. Any other use that excludes monetary profit is still viewed as un-capitalistic — aesthetics can’t be quantified and the long term is irrelevent.

There is some evidence of change from within the the USDA/FS. The multiple use, manage public lands for production (minerals, timber, livestock, etc…) imperative is slowly shifting both from the top-down and the grassroots-up of the FS.  The representation by another contributor in this thread of FS personnel as "lazy" is, in my opinion and experience, unfair and unwarranted.  The suggestion that FS employees all should be "out picking up trash and grading [...] sites", if offered seriously, speaks for itself… [...] First: user pays the costs rather then the public at large. Second: we now have a new policy. Third: some uses can’t pay the freight. Fourth: change the use to one that’s profitable..

This progression seems entirely plausible and fits nicely with the the popular position that private industry can do many/most operations more efficiently than goverment agencies. Jon Meinecke net.subtle-apteryx

Response:

To briefly address the politics of the issue: Perhaps it’s true we get the government we deserve, and by extension the NFS also. In any case they would almost have to reflect the consensus reality of the people. So we have liars, fools, criminals, the lazy and the incompetent running the show (not all, but most). I’ve given up on humanity in groups larger than two, and insist on keeping the public lands a place where I can stick my head in the sand. I pop up occasionally (like on this NG) and throw rocks at whoever ticks me off. If it does any good, great; but those with greater strenth and optimism, and clearer vision, than I are needed to lead the fight. Don            to email remove the ‘u’ from ‘donut’s

Response:

Hi, donut, I do not mean to give the impression that I’m totally against either fees or permits. Each has their place.

I never got that impression. As you explain below was my take on your beliefs.  In heavily used areas that cannot support the demand placed on them, permits may be necessary to restrict use. The point where fees are justified is harder to determine, but not impossible. If electricity, dumpstation, ranger tours, etc. are provided, then a fee SHOULD be charged. If water, trash pickup, or high-maintenance facility are provided, then a fee may or may not be justifiable depending on location, when constructed, cost of services, etc. My main objection concerns the primitive campgrounds and access to NF and wilderness areas. An old outhouse and picnic table on a site built long ago is already paid for, and the minimal maintenance(if any) provided is paid for out of my taxes. Charging a fee for this is double taxation, and the equivalent of being charged to sit on a park bench near the Washington Monument.

If the fee is charged for ‘cost recovery’ and only charged randomly, with no bearing on actual costs, then you are absolutely right in your opposition — if the fee is for controlling entry over what the area can handle then the fee might be justifiable — if the fee is needed to help maintain other less popular areas then once again the fee could be justifiable. If the NFS is practicing triage then this might be the best they can do. Permits are useful to a specific area while fees can help the whole park/public land system if applied and used wisely. We all pay double taxation on a variety of services — for example, here in Ontario, the provincial government collects billions yearly in gasoline taxes that go into general revenues rather then the maintenance of roads that the taxes were originally intended to pay for.    Not every government service should be paid for by user fees. Many of these places get so little use that fees won’t even pay for their collection!

Agreed on user fees. A sign of the health of a society is how we distribute our taxes to help those parts that can’t afford to be self- sustaining. I have no children so should I be exempt from education taxes? In the short term (my lifetime) it sure sounds good to me — in the long term, since I’ve gained from being a member, I owe a debt to the future of my society, and I have no problem with the concept of paying for services I can’t directly benefit from.  The vast majority of public lands are nowhere near their carrying capacity, and permits for parking/access are totally unjustified there.

In actual fact, very few and limited studies have been conducted on ‘carrying capacity’. From the few that have been conducted, some quite wild conclusions have been asserted as *true* and *proof* of wise use. Even us tree huggers, on the rare occasion, misuse studies when it suits our purpose . A little off topic: the economic multiplier from tourism varies from 1:1 from academic studies while governments and tourism advocates claim as much as 8:1. The gung-ho tourism as panacea types tend to ignore the infrastructure costs that are borne by the locals. (In many cases the multiplier is negative: increasing tourism drags down the economy— sure don’t see CofC or the World Bank telling us that too often).  Restricting dispersed camping/parking in lightly used areas to funnel people into fee areas is an infringement of my right to use *my* public land.

This might only be good management — the ‘lightly used areas’ could already be over-stressed. The question should be " what criteria is being used to determine usage". *My* public land is only an extended commons — the usage we allow is our political decision.  I’m not buying the idea that there isn’t adequate funding in the NFS ‘general fund’ for minimal maintenance of primitive sites/areas. I’ve seen too many rangers sitting on their butts in multimillion dollar ‘visitor centers’. They should be out picking up trash and grading those dispersed sites.

This again is largely political — ’someone’ has chosen to have rangers sitting in expensive ‘visiter centers’ as representative of our collective will. The NFS maybe has made this allocation of funds in the interest of public relations — it hasn’t worked for you, but they must feel that without this visuality they would have their support cut drastically. Then again, it might be bureaucratic inertia lagging behind reality.                Tonu                                           – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don         to email remove the ‘u’ from ‘donuts’ This goes to the heart of the quite commonly held position         "In order to justify charging me any Fee to use *my* public         lands it seems they should have to provide me with         something that would not ordinarily be provided." It seems to follow that the bigger the service or facility, the bigger the fee may be, the larger the potential profit, the greater the development pressure… Yup. Donut is really questioning the ‘why’ of these public lands. I wonder how much happier he would be if access was curtailed by a permit system as practiced in very many places (Quetico, Grand Canyon float trip [a combination of both fees {pay the outfitter} and permits {wait several years to get a slot not using the outfitter services}].

Response:

Gee, what is the problem with people who actually use the forest help pay for it’s up keep.

I don’t have a problem with fees for nice developed facilities, but I have a problem with paying to park in a clearcut whose trees were basically donated to the logging company.  And I’ve been charged for barely developed campgrounds that had no latrines or developed water. John Reece

Response:

I do not mean to give the impression that I’m totally against either fees or permits. Each has their place. In heavily used areas that cannot support the demand placed on them, permits may be necessary to restrict use. The point where fees are justified is harder to determine, but not impossible. If electricity, dumpstation, ranger tours, etc. are provided, then a fee SHOULD be charged. If water, trash pickup, or high-maintenance facility are provided, then a fee may or may not be justifiable depending on location, when constructed, cost of services, etc. My main objection concerns the primitive campgrounds and access to NF and wilderness areas. An old outhouse and picnic table on a site built long ago is already paid for, and the minimal maintenance(if any) provided is paid for out of my taxes. Charging a fee for this is double taxation, and the equivalent of being charged to sit on a park bench near the Washington Monument. Not every government service should be paid for by user fees. Many of these places get so little use that fees won’t even pay for their collection! The vast majority of public lands are nowhere near their carrying capacity, and permits for parking/access are totally unjustified there. Restricting dispersed camping/parking in lightly used areas to funnel people into fee areas is an infringement of my right to use *my* public land. I’m not buying the idea that there isn’t adequate funding in the NFS ‘general fund’ for minimal maintenance of primitive sites/areas. I’ve seen too many rangers sitting on their butts in multimillion dollar ‘visitor centers’. They should be out picking up trash and grading those dispersed sites. Don         to email remove the ‘u’ from ‘donuts’   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes to the heart of the quite commonly held position         "In order to justify charging me any Fee to use *my* public         lands it seems they should have to provide me with         something that would not ordinarily be provided." It seems to follow that the bigger the service or facility, the bigger the fee may be, the larger the potential profit, the greater the development pressure… Yup. Donut is really questioning the ‘why’ of these public lands. I wonder how much happier he would be if access was curtailed by a permit system as practiced in very many places (Quetico, Grand Canyon float trip [a combination of both fees {pay the outfitter} and permits {wait several years to get a slot not using the outfitter services}].

Response:

Then they draw unemployment the other two months, hop on their brand new ATVs, and torment the last drop of compassion out of people like me. Is 250/ 170 a normal blood pressure reading? Don

Response:

Are escalating fees preferable to permits to preserve the undeveloped areas? Since some control is necessary.

I’m not lobbying in favor of either fees or permits. The argument seemed to be that imposing fees was unfair because it served to limit access and that by paying a fee, people expected to get some service or facility use.  Such fees may be a useful management tool even for undeveloped areas (offering no special service or facility in return for the fee). This is somewhat ‘chicken and egg’. You build the park and they will come. Absolute revenue is not always the same as maximum profit or even ‘best’ (this I feel is the crux of this discussion) useage.

No "park" is "built" for undeveloped areas, of course.  Public land managers, may be able to "benefit" a larger number of people and generate larger revenues (at some loss of wild areas), for instance, by striking a partnership to build a ski area.  Such an endeavor would certainly be more attractive as potentially profitable to a private firm than operating the area for hikers, campers, cross-country skiers, or mountain bikers… This goes to the heart of the quite commonly held position         "In order to justify charging me any Fee to use *my* public         lands it seems they should have to provide me with         something that would not ordinarily be provided." It seems to follow that the bigger the service or facility, the bigger the fee may be, the larger the potential profit, the greater the development pressure… For-profit private partnerships can and do keep some "wild area" preserves intact. Note membership only fishing areas throughout the world — The ‘members’ pay some very steep prices to keep ‘their’ rivers and lakes exclusive. Not egalitarian, but the areas do get preserved. [...]

Yes, the preservation of private wildlands is a long-standing and perhaps underappreciated practice.  Such lands are in the end, still private, however, and in many cases, the fate of their continue wild existence subject to whim and inheritance,– or the developers’ next buy-out offer…  For public lands, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and other such special interest organizations, often not-for-profit, do contribute to preserving some natural areas. The sort of  public/private partnerships which seem to be suggested by some NFS position papers are more about development and not about preservation, however.  Likely more about concessions rather than protection. Profit and cost are usually quite subjective. I ‘profit’ in non-monetary ways from enjoying pristine wilderness and am willing to ‘pay’ money for the privilege — the amount I pay for fair exchange is mine to decide.

Very true.  What is the net present value of an afternoon on the edge of an unspoiled mountain meadow?   However, stockholders in a for-profit commercial business engaged in a public/private partnership based on public resources or lands are perhaps understandably not very interested in the non-monetary returns. Ecotourism to retain nature preserves must also decide on ways to limit access. If price becomes the criterium for access then there could be considerable monetary profit.

True, there are examples, mainly "exotic" in some way, of high-dollar ecotourism enabling localized profitable nature preserves.  Other ways of profiting from low impact use of natural resources are also possible.  NPR recently had a story about butterfly farming in some forest threatened by resource use pressures (logging, mining, …) What passes for ecotourism within driving distance of me,– the local drive-through "wildlife" park and reserve,– has struggled to remain open, much less turn a profit, even with entry fees more like a theme park than a national park.  Ecotourism supporting the wild undeveloped areas in the US does not seem likely to be profitable in a large way any time soon unless there are drastic cultural changes (to appreciate such areas) and large reductions in the accessibility of such areas. With respect to Fee Demo Project, the Sierra Club and Wild-Wilderness web sites present the argument that it may represent the thin edge of a wedge for increased commercial development.  Given even recent precedents with respect to public land use, there may well be some basis for concern about the management direction the Fee Demo Project may be signalling… Jon Meinecke net.subtle-apteryx

Response:

In the case of undeveloped Fee Areas the goal appears to be control, rather than financial or resource management objectives.

Good point. Indeed, popular undeveloped areas cannot long remain both popular and undeveloped.  Fees or permits serving to limit access may be the least of "evils" to preserve some element of the undeveloped character of certain areas.  Alternatively, some areas may be developed to support a higher load or different mode of recreational use,– of course that will likely result in even higher usage fees. The  argument is made that since people will pay more to use "developed" recreation areas than for "undeveloped" areas, finacial pressure will tend to favor more and more developed areas. The goal of implementing for-profit private partnerships seems unlikely, in and of itself, to result in more "wild areas" preserves.  The intrinsic value of the non-artificial perhaps offers little obvious profit potential (though ecotourism may facilitate some sorts of nature reserves). It’s a case of being charged for what is legally mine, rather than for service or maintenance.

It is perhaps a matter of perspective of what it means that something is "legally ours" in this context, and what we can do with our public resources and on our public lands.  The infamous and much discussed "Area 51" is of course, "public property".  Yet unauthorized citizen-owners may be "charged" or even shot for just being on "their land" there… In reality, each of us has only an undivided interest in our public lands and resources,– not an individual ownership or distinct entitlement.  In the long run, the work to ensure the continued existence of increasingly less plentiful undeveloped areas may be viewed as a service worth paying for,– though the Fee Demo Project with its seeming pro-development subagenda does not seem like the best way to fund that preservation. Jon Meinecke net.subtle-apteryx

Response:

I see it as my federal taxes should buy me an outhouse instead of another bomber I don’t want.

Les’see…a carbon fiber Andy Gump that is able to elude surface-to-air missiles, can travel at approximately 3 times the speed of sound, can deliver a devastating payload, and keeps 428 workers happily employed for 10 months while they build it…didn’t all this happen near Mt. Whitney? (:-D) Sorry, couldn’t resist!! Tom Kenney

Response:

Jon: Very well reasoned post. I’ll add a few questions for thought. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In the case of undeveloped Fee Areas the goal appears to be control, rather than financial or resource management objectives. Good point. Indeed, popular undeveloped areas cannot long remain both popular and undeveloped.  Fees or permits serving to limit access may be the least of "evils" to preserve some element of the undeveloped character of certain areas.  Alternatively, some areas may be developed to support a higher load or different mode of recreational use,– of course that will likely result in even higher usage fees.

Are escalating fees preferable to permits to preserve the undeveloped areas? Since some control is necessary.   The  argument is made that since people will pay more to use "developed" recreation areas than for "undeveloped" areas, finacial pressure will tend to favor more and more developed areas.

This is somewhat ‘chicken and egg’. You build the park and they will come. Absolute revenue is not always the same as maximum profit or even ‘best’ (this I feel is the crux of this discussion) useage. The goal of implementing for-profit private partnerships seems unlikely, in and of itself, to result in more "wild areas" preserves.

For-profit private partnerships can and do keep some "wild area" preserves intact. Note membership only fishing areas throughout the world — The ‘members’ pay some very steep prices to keep ‘their’ rivers and lakes exclusive. Not egalitarian, but the areas do get preserved. Politically the likelihood of more of these being developed is slim — There is pressure though; outfitters in northern Quebec have been lobbying for exclusive control of more areas for several years.   The intrinsic value of the non-artificial perhaps offers little obvious profit potential (though ecotourism may facilitate some sorts of nature reserves).

Profit and cost are usually quite subjective. I ‘profit’ in non-monetary ways from enjoying pristine wilderness and am willing to ‘pay’ money for the privilege — the amount I pay for fair exchange is mine to decide. Ecotourism to retain nature preserves must also decide on ways to limit access. If price becomes the criterium for access then there could be considerable monetary profit. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s a case of being charged for what is legally mine, rather than for service or maintenance. It is perhaps a matter of perspective of what it means that something is "legally ours" in this context, and what we can do with our public resources and on our public lands.  The infamous and much discussed "Area 51" is of course, "public property".  Yet unauthorized citizen-owners may be "charged" or even shot for just being on "their land" there… In reality, each of us has only an undivided interest in our public lands and resources,– not an individual ownership or distinct entitlement.  In the long run, the work to ensure the continued existence of increasingly less plentiful undeveloped areas may be viewed as a service worth paying for,– though the Fee Demo Project with its seeming pro-development subagenda does not seem like the best way to fund that preservation. Jon Meinecke net.subtle-apteryx

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, at least in the Cibola NF, Sandia Ranger District, the fees are paying for replacements for broken-down picnic tables and outhouses. Some money for trail building, too. It strikes me that a lot of the people complaining about fee demo are just a bit chintzy. I see it as my federal taxes should buy me an outhouse instead of another bomber I don’t want. For existing undeveloped facilities I resent being charged for what is legally mine. What is your source of information that Fee Area Project money is being used as you stated, other than the signs posted to that effect?

New Picnic tables, outhouses, trail improvements, etc. Works for me. — Pat O’Connell Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The perceived value of current facilities or access for the fee paid may be a minor concern in the long run.  The more serious objection held by some people is that the Fee Demo program constitutes the "camel’s nose" of commercial recreation development… As much as I hate to admit it, the increasing population is going to place more demand on public lands, and that will need to be accomodated somehow. The kind of facilities desired will be predominantly those catering to motorized activity. This need can be met by expanding existing facilities that have water, blacktop access and trash service. What is so infuriating is the lame, lazy, and corrupt way the NFS, etc. is going about it. Why give over the profitable situations to privatization? In the case of undeveloped Fee Areas the goal appears to be control, rather than financial or resource management objectives. It’s a case of being charged for what is legally mine, rather than for service or maintenance. Don            To email remove the ‘u’ from ‘donut’s

Hmmmm….privatization. Now that’s an idea. Anything the government does private enterprise can do more efficiently, and don’t hit me with the military or printing money. Of course all bets are off if the government were to invoke a prevailing wage law rather than let market forces take their natural course. — Bill Kirk                                "The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human           accomplishment an incredible miracle."…..John Stapp

Response:

In order to justify charging me any Fee to use *my* public lands it seems they should have to provide me with something that would not ordinarily be provided. A picnic table placed 10+ years ago at a wide spot on an unmaintained road doesn’t cut it. This is the equivalent of getting charged to sit on a park bench. There are plenty of tax funded services I’ll never use. Why should I be charged again for minimal facilities I paid for already with my taxes? (or were built by the CCC). Like you said, the Fee Demo money is not being used to maintain/improve the facilities. Hell, a lot of these Fee Demo Areas get so little use they will never even recover the cost of putting up the sign and ‘pay-pipe’! Don – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scarcastic most certainly but I do believe in people paying for their playing in the forest. This includes commericial and recreational since neither the Democrats or the Republican want to fund the forests to their proper levels. —

Response:

In order to justify charging me any Fee to use *my* public lands it seems they should have to provide me with something that would not ordinarily be provided. A picnic table placed 10+ years ago at a wide spot on an unmaintained road doesn’t cut it. This is the equivalent of getting charged to sit on a park bench.

The perceived value of current facilities or access for the fee paid may be a minor concern in the long run.  The more serious objection held by some people is that the Fee Demo program constitutes the "camel’s nose" of commercial recreation development… http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/sanfranciscobay/yodeler/199905/cor…. html http://www.wildwilderness.org/ Jon Meinecke net.subtle-apteryx

Response:

In order to justify charging me any Fee to use *my* public lands it seems they should have to provide me with something that would not ordinarily be provided. A picnic table placed 10+ years ago at a wide spot on an unmaintained road doesn’t cut it. This is the equivalent of getting charged to sit on a park bench. There are plenty of tax funded services I’ll never use. Why should I be charged again for minimal facilities I paid for already with my taxes? (or were built by the CCC). Like you said, the Fee Demo money is not being used to maintain/improve the facilities. Hell, a lot of these Fee Demo Areas get so little use they will never even recover the cost of putting up the sign and ‘pay-pipe’!

Well, at least in the Cibola NF, Sandia Ranger District, the fees are paying for replacements for broken-down picnic tables and outhouses. Some money for trail building, too. It strikes me that a lot of the people complaining about fee demo are just a bit chintzy. OTOH, I do sympathize with rafters that get tagged with fees when other forest users aren’t. Lincoln NF tried to do the same thing to cavers a few years back, but gave it up when it was pointed out that charging fees decreases the visitation to an area, and they were singling out one small group of visitors and letting the rest go there for free. We won. I do think there’s a more equitable fee system there now. — Pat O’Connell Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals…

Response:

Gee, what is the problem with people who actually use the forest help pay for it’s up keep. The problem I have with the fee demostration program is its lack of application of the funds gathered, only about of 1/3 of the money has been spent; and the type of things they have been spending it on, Federal employees at the visitor’s centers who know absolutely nothing about the area they are working nor who care to learn about them. I assume you are being sarcastic/amusing, and I guess you partially answered your own question Bill. Indeed the GAO has *almost* flat-out accused the NFS of criminal mismanagement. Go to the mentioned URLs for other opinions on the Fee Demo subject.

Scarcastic most certainly but I do believe in people paying for their playing in the forest. This includes commericial and recreational since neither the Democrats or the Republican want to fund the forests to their proper levels. — Bill Kirk                                "The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human           accomplishment an incredible miracle."…..John Stapp

Response:

Gee, what is the problem with people who actually use the forest help pay for it’s up keep. The problem I have with the fee demostration program is its lack of application of the funds gathered, only about of 1/3 of the money has been spent; and the type of things they have been spending it on, Federal employees at the visitor’s centers who know absolutely nothing about the area they are working nor who care to learn about them.

I assume you are being sarcastic/amusing, and I guess you partially answered your own question Bill. Indeed the GAO has *almost* flat-out accused the NFS of criminal mismanagement. Go to the mentioned URLs for other opinions on the Fee Demo subject.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A post appeared in an untimely manner replying to this on another NG, but curiously not this post itself. (I dug it out of deja.com) The opposition to the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (a.k.a. Fee Demo) has grown steadily since the creation of the Program.  This federal program allows the Forest Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Park Service to charge access and user fees for citizens recreating on public lands.  For the Park Service, this is not new, but for the other agencies, this completely changes the 100 year-old legacy of lands held in the public trust.  For background on this issue, go to http://www.freeourforests.org (Free Our Forests), or http://www.igc.org/sespewild (Keep the Sespe Wild Committee), or http://www.wildwilderness.org (Wild Wilderness). Free Our Forests, an activist group in Southern California specifically protesting the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, has compiled a list of organizations who have come out in opposition to this program.  At the time of this posting, 125 organizations in most of the states where the program is in place, including 19 national organizations, have been added to this list. (Some of these organizations do not oppose fees in parks, and most do not oppose fees at developed campgrounds that predate Fee Demo).  The present list can be found on the Free Our Forests website at:  http://www.freeourforests.org/opposition.html.  This list also includes 7 California governments who have passed resolutions against the program and 12 Representatives who have come out in opposition to the program. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors in California will vote on a resolution to oppose the program on February 8, which, if they pass it, would bring the governments opposed up to 8. A number of organizations beyond the assembled list of opposed organizations have also been contacted and have either not responded yet, or are sending the question of whether to put their names on this list to the heads and/or members of their respective organizations. If you are a member of an organization that is not on this list, can speak for that organization, and would like it to be on the list, your organization and any other information you would like to provide. Contact information would be very useful for coordinating the effort to end the program; such information would not be disseminated publicly. If you know of any more organizations who should be on this list, contact them and ask them directly if they would like to be included and have them pass the information on to Michael Zierhut.  -Michael Zierhut  Free Our Forests webmaster  http://www.freeourforests.org p.s. Another item some might find interesting on the Free Our Forests website is an archive (with an easy to read table of contents) of news and events that have occurred relating to the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fee Demonstration Program since its inception.  This archive can be found at:http://www.freeourforests.org/newsflash.htm .

Gee, what is the problem with people who actually use the forest help pay for it’s up keep. The problem I have with the fee demostration program is its lack of application of the funds gathered, only about of 1/3 of the money has been spent; and the type of things they have been spending it on, Federal employees at the visitor’s centers who know absolutely nothing about the area they are working nor who care to learn about them. — Bill Kirk                                "The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human           accomplishment an incredible miracle."…..John Stapp

Response:

A post appeared in an untimely manner replying to this on another NG, but curiously not this post itself. (I dug it out of deja.com) The opposition to the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (a.k.a. Fee Demo) has grown steadily since the creation of the Program.  This federal program allows the Forest Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Park Service to charge access and user fees for citizens recreating on public lands.  For the Park Service, this is not new, but for the other agencies, this completely changes the 100 year-old legacy of lands held in the public trust.  For background on this issue, go to http://www.freeourforests.org (Free Our Forests), or http://www.igc.org/sespewild (Keep the Sespe Wild Committee), or http://www.wildwilderness.org (Wild Wilderness). Free Our Forests, an activist group in Southern California specifically protesting the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, has compiled a list of organizations who have come out in opposition to this program.  At the time of this posting, 125 organizations in most of the states where the program is in place, including 19 national organizations, have been added to this list. (Some of these organizations do not oppose fees in parks, and most do not oppose fees at developed campgrounds that predate Fee Demo).  The present list can be found on the Free Our Forests website at:  http://www.freeourforests.org/opposition.html.  This list also includes 7 California governments who have passed resolutions against the program and 12 Representatives who have come out in opposition to the program. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors in California will vote on a resolution to oppose the program on February 8, which, if they pass it, would bring the governments opposed up to 8. A number of organizations beyond the assembled list of opposed organizations have also been contacted and have either not responded yet, or are sending the question of whether to put their names on this list to the heads and/or members of their respective organizations. If you are a member of an organization that is not on this list, can speak for that organization, and would like it to be on the list, your organization and any other information you would like to provide. Contact information would be very useful for coordinating the effort to end the program; such information would not be disseminated publicly. If you know of any more organizations who should be on this list, contact them and ask them directly if they would like to be included and have them pass the information on to Michael Zierhut.  -Michael Zierhut  Free Our Forests webmaster  http://www.freeourforests.org p.s. Another item some might find interesting on the Free Our Forests website is an archive (with an easy to read table of contents) of news and events that have occurred relating to the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fee Demonstration Program since its inception.  This archive can be found at:http://www.freeourforests.org/newsflash.htm .

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

Related Posts

• Rost Twins Win Again
• Views on not taking any drugs for MS?
• distrust
• MONSANTO'S 'DESPERATE' PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN
• Triathlete killed in New Jersey
• BUSH = CEO Enron = Corruption
• Lets try to look at the big picture.
• An rather odd battle shaping up...
• To good to be true....I must be dreaming
• No-Strike Lightning - a scam?