[jeffmacewen]

...I do frequently find myself wondering just where in the heck our species is going?!

[hikeaz]

On September 18th, in a meeting with virtually no public notice, the Arizona Recreation Resource Advisory Committee approved an across-the-board increase for all fees on the Prescott National Forest as well as an increase in the fee to visit the Paria Canyon Wilderness Area.
On September 25, the Southeast RecRAC approved new fees and fee increases at five National Forests and one BLM recreation area.
On October 8th the Northeast RecRAC approved all fee proposals on five National Forests, despite the fact that a majority of comments were in opposition.
On October 16th the California RecRAC voted to approve fee increases on the Klamath National Forest even though all but one of the 28 comments they received from the public opposed them.
The "Box Score" on RecRAC Approvals now stands at 728 fee increases and 232 new fee sites in two years. Only 28 agency fee proposals have been turned down.

Are there still any doubters out there that the 'fix is in'?

Oh, and these increases in the face of this report... (Government types... gotta love 'em)
"A Forest Service report, based on surveys of forest visitors between 2005 and 2007, shows that Arizona and New Mexico barely held even with 2004 visitation, while every other region of the country saw significant declines. The Pacific Northwest forests saw a dramatic 27% reduction in visits.

The study, issued by the National Visitor Use Monitoring office of the Forest Service, is the third since the Forest Service began a systematic survey of forest visitation in 2000. Prior to that, visitation estimates were little more than wildly inflated guesses.

The reports have shown a steady decline, from 214.2 million visitors in 2001 to 204.8 million in 2004, and now 178.6 million in 2007. That's a 16.6% decline overall, which equates to 35.5 million fewer National Forest visits." "Hey, this fee demo stuff is really working - they're staying away in DROVES!"

[jeffmacewen]

I don't know whether or not fewer visitors is necessarily a bad thing...

[chumley]

I don't know whether or not fewer visitors is necessarily a bad thing...

I've said this before, but to me a fee-based system is discriminatory. Not everybody can afford it. Public lands should be free (or at least as free as possible) to everybody. But as our population grows, I think there also needs to be a cap on the number of users of public lands. I think a solution similar to hunting licenses will ultimately have to be enacted in order to protect our natural areas from over-use (and subsequent destruction).

There should be use permits/licenses which are awarded for free in random drawings. Sounds like a hassle? It might be. To me, the key is making it free. Unfortunately, it seems eveyrtime you need a permit for something, there's always a fee associated with it. (With the possible exception of the Bulldog Canyon gates near the Lower Salt River and Apache Junction which I think successfully limits OHV use to reasonable levels while educating the permit-holders on resource damage.)

It is frustrating however that there is a public-comment period where the public comments not implemented. However, to be completely fair, many of the comments of the public are uninformed, selfish opinions, that don't take into account any of the numerous other issues which the land managers must consider. Unfortunately, in the face of cuts to budgets and staff, I doubt many land managers are saddened by a reduction in visitors.

[jeffmacewen]

I guess what worries me most is the disproportionally large number of people who go to a place like Catalina Highway to drink and spray paint rocks, or race their crotch-rocket up the mountain befouling the experience for all concerned; as opposed to those seeking quiet and solitude. Those jackals all have a right to be up there as much as I do...or do they?

Maybe what we need is a system whereby users are required to either:

1) Pay a large fee for yearly use, something like NPS has; or
2) Pay a smaller fee and commit 'X' hours to public service in that forest or management area. This could be met by picking up trash, working on trails, all kinds of ways.

This way everyone wins, even those without a huge budget. I'd be happy to commit to either, I just don't have time to donate; others might have lots of time but little extra money to spend, etc.

[jeffmacewen]

One other point I'd like to make about all of this: OHV users are notorious for ignoring fees and permit requirements. I speak from experience being a responsible one who wastes a check and stamp every year to snail mail in for a State Land Use permit. From what I've seen, 90% of the people you encounter on backcountry trails in an OHV don't have permits, haven't paid a cent into the forest, and don't care. They know that they will never get caught and they couldn't care less about tread lightly or any of the other initiatives. The exceptions generally occur within responsible enthusiast groups like the "Rough Riders", etc, who force people to behave or get banned from future outings. I would pay whatever it took to get more enforcement out in the back areas; heck, along the highway on Mt. Lemmon!! If it meant I had to pay $100 a year to use any part of Coronado National Forest, I'd pay it if I knew that would mean a ranger along every major trail on the weekends, Sabino flooded with Rangers, and the back country areas constantly supervised by air and by Rangers in OHVs, themselves. It would be worth every cent...

[Dschur]

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has a new Web page designed to inform off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts about new laws that will affect OHV use starting Jan. 1, 2009.Some of the provisions include:

The requirement to purchase an annual OHV decal for any OHV designed by the manufacturer primarily for off-highway use and weighing 1,800 pounds or less, in order to operate that OHV in Arizona. This generally includes all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), side-by-sides (utility vehicles), dirt bikes, and some sand rails. The OHV decal can be purchased through the Arizona Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) after Jan. 1. MVD should announce the cost of the decal soon.

Trucks, 4x4s, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), cars and other recreational vehicles (motor homes) are not required to purchase the OHV decal. You will need to purchase a State Land Recreational Use permit to have your truck/trailer on any state land, the decal only works for the OHVs described.

Travel is limited to roads, trails and areas that are designated open by the land management agency for motorized vehicle use.

Travel by motorized vehicles that causes damage to wildlife habitat, riparian areas, cultural or natural resources, or property or improvements is prohibited.

OHVs generating sound greater than 96 decibels must have a muffler or other noise dissipative device.

Anyone under the age of 18 will be required to wear a properly fitted and fastened USDOT approved helmet when riding any OHV.

The new laws were passed thanks in large part to a joint effort between Arizona sportsmen, conservation groups, OHV user groups, elected officials, and other members of the public.

The goal of the new regulations is to provide better OHV management and protection of natural resources while maintaining access.

Not sure how they will enforce all of this too....

[Jim Lyding]

Get used to more fees, folks. Funds for managing our wildlands had been dropping even before this current economic malaise. The federal government has cut funding for our wildlands pretty consistently (especially since 2001...), state budgets are not picking up the slack, and hunting is becoming less popular. Hunting & fishing have traditionally paid a lot of the freight in terms of wildlife management by the states, but nationwide hunting is down.
In fact, outdoor use is declining overall in this country. I can tell you all two things: we are going to be paying a lot more in terms of fees to use our wildlands, and that people who think they can get away with not paying will get hammered if they get caught.

[Randal Schulhauser]

I always purchase an annual NPS pass. I know it doesn't include access to State Parks, but thought it includes access to some Federal Rec Sites, State Trust Land and BLM lands. Wouldn't mind them adding an incremental fee to assist NF & BLM and include full access to all fee sites...

[hikeaz]

Baucus, Crapo Re-introduce Bill to Repeal the RAT
Since the Bush administration endorsed the current fee-charging policy and arranged for the RAT to become the 'law of the land' without a congressional vote, the re-introduced bill should face a brighter future with the Obama administration and the new, blue Congress.


By Bill Schneider, 4-22-09

Tomorrow, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) will take another swing at the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA)--or Recreation Access Tax (RAT) to its detractors--by re-introducing their bill to repeal the law and start over with a sensible fee policy. The bill is identical to the bill that died last year at the end of the 110th Congress.

“Every tax day we pay to use our public lands, we shouldn’t be taxed twice to go fishing, hiking, or camping on OUR public lands,” Baucus told NewWest.Net today. “Paying twice just doesn’t make any sense. That’s why I’m going to fight to get this bill passed.”

Back in December 2004, in the waning hours of the 108th Congress, a month after George W Bush was re-elected, Congressman Ralph Regula (R-OH) attached FLREA as a rider to a must-pass omnibus spending bill and presto, the RAT was the law of the land with no direct vote of Congress and minimal opportunity for public input.

Since then, federal agencies, especially the Forest Service (FS), have been in a frenzy creating and raising fees for use and access to federal lands. Idaho and Montana have had fewer fees and fee increases than most states because the FS knew their local senators didn’t support the fee-charging policy to pay for use and access of land owned by all Americans, believing instead that people pay for this on April 15 every year. But in most other states with significant acreages of national forests such as Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington fees have experienced a steady increase in fees since 2004

“If people are going to care about our natural resources,” Kitty Benzar, President of the primary nonprofit group working to repeal FLREA, the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, told NewWest.Net, “they have to get outdoors and experience nature, and they shouldn’t have to buy a ticket to look at a tree. The stress we are all under in the current economy underscores the importance of simple joys like going for a walk in the woods without having to weigh how much that costs.

“As fee programs have grown and multiplied, visitation to public lands has fallen,” she noted. “That hurts us because we spend too much time indoors, and it hurts local economies that depend on visitors coming to enjoy the public lands. But it has also hurt the public lands agencies, because they are slowly but steadily losing their constituency of people who care whether they have the resources they need to do a good job.

“The Fee Repeal Bill is a great step toward restoring the access to nature that we all need and deserve,” Benzar concluded. “The best things in life used to be free, and it’s high time they were again.”

[dysfunction]

While I agree, in light of the State Park closures.. what will this do to federal assets?

[chumley]

Well, given the current national debt, combined with the upcoming increase in the budget deficit, I'm not sure that Congress will be too keen on repealing these fees, and thus needing to allocate more money administering public lands ... but who knows? I don't think they've said no to spending on anything yet, so why start now?

Though unrelated to fees, I did see that Arizona's National Parks and Monuments will be getting a chunk of funding from the Feds under the stimulus bill.

Nineteen national parks, monuments and historic sites in Arizona will share in more than $20 million in stimulus funding, officials said Wednesday.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar released details of more than $750 million in projects paid for with money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

By directing money to the parks, Salazar said, "we are creating a new legacy of stewardship for our national park system while helping our economy stand up again."

Grand Canyon National Park will receive more than half of the $20.4 million set aside for national park sites in Arizona. Among the projects funded by the $10.9 million for the Canyon are repair and upgrade work on the historic trans-Canyon trail, repair work on North Rim trails and structures damaged by wildfire, repair and preservation work on 130 miles of road and the purchase of five alternative-fuel transit buses.

A sampling of other sites receiving money:

• Canyon de Chelly National Monument in northwestern Arizona will get $2.9 million for work on roads, restrooms and trails.

• Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona will get $1 million for work on a visitor's center, campground and roads.

• Saguaro National Park, outside Tucson, will receive $1.5 million to restore landscape and habitat, install gates, repair trails and seal hazardous mine sites.

• Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site at Ganado on the Navajo Reservation will receive $86,000 to rehabilitate the historic picnic area and do farmland preservation work with the Navajo Youth Corps.

• Chiricahua National Monument in southeastern Arizona will get $838,000 for road and trail work and repair work at two historic structures.

[chumley]

• Canyon de Chelly National Monument in northwestern Arizona ....

Perhaps some funding will also go to a geography class or some map-reading skills?

[dysfunction]

• Canyon de Chelly National Monument in northwestern Arizona ....

Perhaps some funding will also go to a geography class or some map-reading skills?

Maybe they mean it's West of Teec Nos Pos?

[jeffmacewen]

Saguaro had already started mapping the locations of those mines and wildcat ATV roads so they must be definitely getting some $$...

[Jim_H]

Why can't a group of us just buy some passes and share? Pass sharing makes sense, and its legal. Even if the $20 for a yearly red rocks pass, or whatever, isn't really a financial burden it is the principle of the thing.

[dysfunction]

yea, one of my friends and I split pass costs, you normally get two anyway