Take Action against Fee Demo !!!

[clutch7]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this, but here is a link to sign a petition against the extension of the federal fee demo program (which is responsible for the parking fee in the Tonto Forest).

http://www.petitiononline.com/feedemo/petition.html

The petition is...

· As U.S. citizens we have already paid taxes for professional management of our public lands.
· Once fees are implemented, history shows they increase over time.
· While these fees may not seem excessive to some now, we have watched fees at other sites, i.e.. National Parks, double in one year.
· We believe it is the right of all Americans to have free access to these lands, not the right of only those who can afford to pay fees.
· We believe it is unlikely that the fee program will benefit public lands. History shows fees returning to the general fund once fee program is established. Despite claims that that money will return to the site where it was collected, Congress historically cuts the agency's operating budget by the same amount as the amount of fee money returning to the site.
· We oppose plans to charge users of backcountry and undeveloped areas to pay for development of campgrounds and "front country" they are not, and may have no intention, of using.
· We believe that Congress should re-evaluate its priorities and allocate sufficient funds for the proper management of these cherished resources, held dear to all Americans.

It is has been a miserable failure, and I feel it is unconstitutional, regardless of its purported benefits. The vote is fast approaching.

I hope you agree and care enough to protect "hiking for free." I will not pay to sleep on the ground. However, it is about more than simply paying to play in the wild. It is about sustaining wildlands, keeping them free from corporate interests. After all, that is a big part of why we all love hiking, so that we can escape from the commercialism that is threatening to ruin our culture.

Thanks much.
Kevin

For more info, please visit aznofee.org and http://www.wildwilderness.org .

[Photosmith]

Nothing is free. If what you're saying is that you don't want to pay at the gate, then you need to be forthcoming enough to state that you would rather have either federal or state taxes high enough to charge everyone for forest maintenance, regardless of if the use it or not. Personally, I like the idea of charging the people who actually use resources for their use.

[clutch7]

In response to Photosmith's reply:

Please don't use a tired cliche ("nothing is free") to argue for or against something that is so important and misunderstood.

First, the Forest Service is a government organization funded by my tax dollars (and yours). We are already paying to use public lands. Further, I'm not sure it's in the best interest of anyone involved to throw more money at an organization that has such a history of fiscal irresponsibility like the US Forest Service, and I definitely do not think it is a good idea to allow private companies to levy use fees without allowing users the right to due process when ticketed by such companies. Do we really want to deliver our wilderness into the hands of corporations? Hello?.....logging, mining, real estate development....yes these are all great examples of corporate ethics achieving moral high ground when given access to our most beautiful public lands.

I, on the other hand, do appreciate the beauty and sanctity of nature. I do pick up trash on almost every hike I make. I do volunteer for organizations that are genuinely interested in the health and preservation of public lands and, lastly, I would be willing to pay to use such lands if I thought it would bring real change. The current legislation on this issue is reckless, as is evidenced by the way in which the first two installments have been passed, namely as what's called 'rider' ammendments that are tacked on to completely unrelated legislation so that the public does not have a chance to adequately assess their 'real' value.

Photosmith, you should research this issue more if you truly care about the future of Arizona wildlands.

[azhiker96]

Clutch7, Thanks for posting the links. There is some very good information contained there. There are many things that our taxes support entirely. I think the wilderness should be one of those.

[stsimmer]

I think it is wise to distinguish what we wish was reality, from what is. Granted, this is America and the majority can create its own reality. For the same reason, we need to read the handwriting on the wall when public sentiment moves. The trend in today's reality, as I see it, is that people who use public lands are going to have to support them.

Taxes pay for the infrastructure to own the land. But visitors create additional costs. The fact is, user fees pay only a small part of the costs of maintaining a wilderness. As I understand it, the fees collected remain in the National Forest that collected them. I don't have a problem with this.

I live in Minnesota, not Arizona. I am an avid user of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. After many years of free use, we now pay $10 per person per visit to enter this million acre wilderness. I have seen results in improved maintenance and better enforcement.

I will be coming to Arizona next month to spend a week in the Superstitions. It will cost me far less than a night in a cheap motel to leave my car at a trailhead. Not a bad deal, in my opinion.

Cheers!

PS- I don't work for the forest service!

[bigracket1]

In response to stsimmer's reply:
Mr Zimmer, you and others might want to question why some areas get higher use than others. There are really only two reasons: proximity to metro areas, and paved roads, both of which can be termed jointly as easy access. The beauty of the landscape comes in at a distant third place. As an example, compare the Grand Canyon National Park with Havasu Falls. How many people travel to the rim of the Grand Canyon each year? Great, now how many of those get to the river? That's right, far less than one percent. On the other hand Havasu Falls is extremely beautiful, but requires much more effort, and is visited by several thousand in a whole year. I should note here that the fees are similar, but the Park is public, while Havasu is part of the Havasupai reservation.

Allow me to lay out a common cycle for you in layman's terms. Easy access creates high traffic. Traffic creates negative impact, like litter and trail erosion. Impact causes resources to be diverted to the source of the impact. Fair play rules dictate that users pay for their own impact, which leads to the creation of fees. The circle completes when the existence of fees justifies a higher level of traffic, with public lands included for no obvious reason other than Mr Zimmer's belief that the world is inexorably pushing for a greater level of commerce. After all, the writing is on the wall, right? And the writing says that public lands are included in the cycle.

The answer is to leave wilderness roads less accessible, and therefore less commercialized as a result. As an acceptable compromise for those who believe as Mr Zimmer and are willing to see the national forests torn down slowly by what passes for progress, let me offer the Arizona Snowbowl as an example. Access to the resort and all surrounding areas is paved but free. A fee is charged only for the value-added improvements on the forest land leased by the resort. Only if you ride the ski lifts do you pay. Compare this to the machines that we are asked to bow down and worship for the privilege of going down a few miles of dirt road to Peralta, First Water, or just about anywhere in Sedona, followed by parking our car and walking a few miles. So we end up paying for a permanent restroom structure in the middle of the wilderness, whether we wanted it there in the first place or not.

I may be considered a hiking snob, one who is unwilling to share the trail with others. But if you're willing to travel to the far reaches of wilderness where I occasionally go, you'll have earned my respect just by being there. The fact that you're seven miles from the nearest dirt road means that you're more likely to be a good steward of the land that you and all of the fellow citizens that care to share may enjoy. It may just be that it's more difficult to carry beer bottles seven miles in, but I prefer to think that people enjoy the beauty and solitude of nature more by working for it. Just as I suspected from Zimmer's tone, Boundary Waters offers a fully commercialized wilderness experience, where you sign up to camp in a little spot, and can bring your boat to selected locations by passing through an "entry point" that you paid to get through in advance. Once you make sure your canoe is registered as per Minnesota law, and you get your life jackets together, you're almost ready to begin your "wilderness like experience." Just as Mother Nature intended. And of course if you can afford a canoe and registration fees, surely there's no need to complain about a measly $10 day use fee! You see, Mr Zimmer has a different style of elitism or snobbery, one where money rules the day. This would be completely defensible and even admirable on private lands, but I'm sure you can see how some would argue that the poor are being shut out from lands that ostensibly belong to everyone. And I'm one of the poor. Until I see sidewalk access fees in the city, I'll know Mr Zimmer's cause hasn't quite caught on, and there's still something to look forward to enjoying without cost, even if I have to defend the principle on its merits every once in a while. Strangely enough, city fixtures tend to be very highly accessible, with costs being almost nonexistent (unless you turn in your book after the due date).

[joebartels]

what would be some examples of high impact wilderness areas with no fees that are clean, maintained and don't require a tax increase

or are you saying let 'em trash the boundaries and we can all hike in further to enjoy the wilderness

[Abe]

A couple of thoughts/questions/comment.

1) Is it best to air those grievances of "fee demo's" to the forest service, 1 of 7 agencies under the United States Department of Agriculture?
http://www.usda.gov
I do not recall anybody mentioning the USDA and they are after all in charge of "192 million acres of National Forest and Rangeland" and I am sure the forest service has to answer to them.

2) I seen wilderness mentioned several times. I would be interested to hear others definition of wilderness.
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm

[nasbond]

Let's reverse the question. Are there places that have a high impact and are free. But lets not limit it to just to the wilderss. I can go to a city park and feed the ducks for free. Many of the trails around Flagstaff are for free and have a very high use rate. Trails in Phoenix when used on a weekend I have hiked with 500 of my friends and there dogs. It seems that the cities can figure it out but not the forest service.

Why do we have to raise taxes? The government spends billions of dollars for some really dumb things. Maybe they could spend some for a really smart thing.

[stsimmer]

This is an emotionally charged topic, with strong feelings on both sides. I'll try to be civil in my arguement.
First, on the issue of free use in high impact areas, like city parks - get ready. We in MN are already seeing entry fees and window stickers required for suburban regional parks.
Second, as to the alleged elitism of BWCAW users: here in MN, we own canoes like you Arizonans own backpacks. Spending $500 or $600 on a canoe that lasts 10-20 years is not exactly an elite category expense. Spending $30,000 on a 4x4 SUV to get me to a remote trailhead seems far more "elite."
The BWCAW is certainly "wilderness like" in some areas, but it is big enough to get lost in too. There are no reserved campsites. Just an entry permit, then you're off for a long as you like. After a day's travel, it is easy to leave the beginners behind and be truly alone. Besides a canoe, paddles, the required PFD, and a few packs for food and gear, there are no high tech requirements. Just a million acres woods and lakes( not to mention the adjoining Quetico Wilderness across the border). Campsites are designated on maps, but there are no signs to mark portage trails, lakes or campsite locations. There are only a few sites on each lake, and usually none are within sight of each other. For $10 bucks plus gas and grocery store food, you can have a pretty good time.
Granted, there are outfitters who will provide everything for a fee, but for out of staters who don't happen to own all their equipment, it's a fair service.
Anyway, I don't think wilderness fees equal elitism. Most folks pay far more for hunting and fishing licenses (those are also things we do a lot of in MN) than they ever will for wilderness permits. The last time I checked, there were an awful lot of people asking for a piece of the government's tax collections. Wilderness users are a minority. If we just sit and whine that it should all be "free," we won't get far. If we kick in a few bucks to support our activity, we are more likely to have it matched. That's just politics, not elitism.

[Abe]

I can go to a city park and feed the ducks for free.

Good point on several counts nasbond;however, I would counter that feeding ducks is a low impact use and some other uses, say baseball, football, soccer, and perhaps swimming pools may have charges to maintain O&M costs, electric bills, ect.

Yes, this is a "emotionally charged topic" stsimmer. Pretty neat ain't it? I served in Wisconsin for three years, my first exposure of your neck of the woods. Beautiful country up in the north. Live on "Prairie Home Companion"!

[stsimmer]

Which reminds me: Lake Wobegon is still a "no fee" lake. The other 9999 will cost you a boat sticker fee.

[bigracket1]

In response to joe bartels' reply:
Joe, I think you've described the problem very well, and in so few words. What some people call wilderness is simply an area outside of town. Such areas are frequently visited, sometimes by hundreds of people per weekend. These areas are not true wilderness, and in fact are just a buffer zone through which people who don't want true wilderness won't usually cross. Mr Zimmer also made the same allusion below your comment when he stated that it takes a day's travel to leave the beginners behind.

My point above was that traffic and impact are related. High numbers of people is the cause, and negative impact is the effect. Thus, impact fee = traffic fee. Basically, you are charged a fee because everyone wants to go there. I'll go one step further here. The fees are not to reduce demand, since once an area is highly trafficked the demand continually builds. Once the traffic reaches a critical mass, the demand becomes inelastic, and the fees are not to reduce impact, but to generate revenue. (Side note: Why is the ranger necessary? To keep people from doing things they would be doing in urban areas but shouldn't be.) Because of the occasional public outcry, like the one seen in the AZ Republic on Feb 2, some of the fees go toward impact mitigation, like picking up litter and building more restroom facilities. In this manner, an increasing number of people can be sustained in a small area of wilderness, and demand builds to the point where it is highly inelastic, and fees can then be raised again.

The only way to unconnect the circle (so to speak) is to maintain the integrity of wilderness areas by keeping roads far away from them. Once the asphalt goes down, it is a given that the boundaries (buffer zones) will be trashed. At that point it is inevitable that the fee boxes and restrooms will go up, and most of us believe that the wilderness starts where the large permanent structures stop. I'm in favor of the existing buffer zones, because they divert people who would otherwise create more buffers elsewhere. Also, there should always be a way to avoid charging people who want to travel to low impact (read: low traffic) wilderness areas.

So in answer to your first question, there is no such thing as a high impact wilderness area, since impact (=traffic) spells the end of wilderness and the beginning of civilization. In other words, high impact and wilderness are mutually exclusive. Also, just as our taxes pay for city parks, we can consider the buffer zones between true civilization and true wilderness to be "country parks", both in the sense that they're less urban, and that they're owned by "we the people" and operated by us as well, to the extent that we exercise our democratic oversight. Two city parks in Phoenix that come to mind are Papago and South Mountain. Both are good examples of the aforementioned buffer zones. Neither has an entrance fee. And like the country parks, the areas most enforced are the same areas where the most people congregate. The closer I get to a road, the more likely I am to see a ranger. This is also true in the Forests.

You'll also notice in city parks that the fees that are charged are not to pay for impact (which is already subsidized) but to keep demand down. If the soccer fields were free, everyone would use them. Since demand for soccer fields is elastic, fees are highly discouraging, and they effectively allocate scarce resources. On the trails, demand would be allocated by forming a line, but even the suburban trails haven't gotten that busy yet. The only way fees could possibly be justified in forests is if it were proved that each car does $4 in negative impact as it parks at the trailhead, and the forests must necessarily be closed if the fees were not charged. Don't laugh; this happens during extreme fire season, when hikers end up all over tinderbox buffer zones, and the average cost per stupid hiker is more than anyone could possibly be willing to pay. In this special case, the forest could not continue on as usual, with or without fees, and the only rational option is to close the forest to all. However, in most cases, the forest goes on as usual, and suburban projects like Annual River Cleanup Day help to make fees a dead issue.

As it stands now, we have both wilderness and pseudo-wilderness for anyone who desires. The fees are a drop in the bucket, except for the individual user. Let me add here that being the poor person that I am, I bought the backpack on my profile photo fifteen years ago for ten dollars. I have not bought a new camping backpack since that time. So yes, I am cheap, unlike all those hunters whose collective demand to bag an animal is highly inelastic. (Don't believe me? Check out how much an elk or sheep permit goes for in Arizona! When the cost of going on a hike becomes more than the cost of harassing my US Senator and Representative daily, I will change some of my weekend plans. I hope it never has to come to that, and I'm sure some of the people's servants feel the same way too.

[nasbond]

There may be a valid argument that if a hunter is charged a fee then why not a hiker. Yes a permit for a elk and all the eqiipment that goes into hunting elk is far greater than equipment for hiking. For two thousand bucks a person could be the best outfitted hiker around. A hunter pays four thousand for the ATV, then add guns, campers, fifth wheel, beer boomboxes playing Hank who ever and the price can be quite high. But all this hunting is done in the forest not in the wilderness.

If we accept the idea that there are buffer zones and wilderness zones (Which I do) then should they be treated differently? If using the buffer zone and going and seeing a baseball game is the same thing then fees could be justified.

Some the the wilderness area that have paths that allow only foot travel today I drove my pink 1941 Jeep on same paths fifty years ago. You could go any time and any where for any reason and no one cared. Now we have locked gates, rules and fees(also spelled taxes). Which of these two worlds are better? Neither we need more control today because we have more people and they are farther away from nature than fifty years ago.

I guess we are going to have more controls not less. Maybe we should try and at least make the controls the least intrusive we can.

[Abe]

Which reminds me: Lake Wobegon is still a "no fee" lake. The other 9999 will cost you a boat sticker fee.

Really! I was not aware of that.

Good points bigracket1. However, simplistic as I am and a lover of Edward Abbey's work, I cannot help but wonder what the true roll of the national forest is when formed. I had always consider it public lands set aside to generate revenue for the USDA. Afterall seven agencies fall under the USDA, to include the forest service and I am sure each agency battle for the largest piece of pie during budget time. Therefore, I am a believer the national forest is a government form of a ranch/farm. Take care of the woodland creatures to be hunted and grow trees for the timber industries. The rangers, God Bless "em, are the cowboys and the farmers. And it is public land and can be run, as I believe;however the USDA/forest service wishes in order to profit by it. Cattle ranchers can graze their cattle in the forest, four wheelers, ATV'ers, hikers, mountain bikers, trail runners, children, and in some places even the handicap, to name a few, can use the national forest. Naturally, before making any decisions, the forest service will bring up those idea's of changes before the people for consideration. Happens here all the time in Prescott and seems to balance out to rile people up; fee demo's and closing a few roads once open to four wheeler's. At least no hiking trails have been closed on me. YET!

Of course as I type this I know in the back of my mind I may be wrong with the above, won't be the first nor will it be the last.

In any event, to make a long write-up short, I do not mind the demo fee program, it has certainly help Lynx Lake Recreation Area and Thumb Butte in our area. Both serious hi-use, hi-impact areas, especailly during the summer when folks come up here from Phoenix. And I hike the trails in 'em once in a while. When I don't want to do that, then I hike else where.

[azhiker96]

I just worry that there will come a day when there will be no wilderness that can be accessed for free. Wilderness will be legally available only to those who have disposable income. Of course, we are not to that point yet. The less traveled trailheads do not have pay boxes. Also, they take down the pay stations in the Supes during the summer. That's my prime hiking time there, no fee and I usually have the trails to myself. Obviously the forest service wants the most bang for the buck and won't spend the time or money to maintain a paystation that is not paying for itself.

There's many ways we can let the government know what we think about the fee demo project but the most effective way is with our dollars. Avoid the fee station trailheads or carpool to lesson the cost per hiker. As long as there's a profit with the stations they'll remain. This is a great windmill for tilting though. I've enjoyed the discussion.

[bigracket1]

Also, they take down the pay stations in the Supes during the summer. That's my prime hiking time there, no fee and I usually have the trails to myself. Obviously the forest service wants the most bang for the buck and won't spend the time or money to maintain a paystation that is not paying for itself.

What you see here is the Tonto Forest responding to seasonal changes in the elasticity of demand. In the summer when demand is elastic, pay boxes would drive hikers away, and the fee box couldn't sustain its own rent. So in the summer, the economic solution would be to move the boxes to the high country where the traffic generated could sustain the rent of the box. In a similar vein, hunting is always inelastic, so the state can not only set high prices but determine the exact season as well. So the government is already acting economically, as it does with logging and mining claims, where allowed by Congress. The forgotten value is the implicit value of maintaining the land as is for public consumption, which as a matter of course is rarely imputed. The implicit value to the nation as a whole of having huge playgrounds is the stuff that bored economists calculate in their spare time. It is fairly evident that not all government agencies make the right decisions. At least no forests have been turned into open pit mines lately.

Today I'll pick on the Arizona Bureau of Land Management. It holds lands in trust until they can be sold for maximum value to fund the state educational coffers. In the meantime they rent to ranchers, who not only trash the land with cattle (very high-impact animals), but usually deprive others of the opportunity to use the land, negating the implicit value of the land. Often, due to the impact from cattle, the land is worth less than it was when the lease began, and the difference in value from beginning to end of the lease is greater than the cost of the lease itself. No matter, the land will be bulldozed when sold and its value will return and even increase, but during the course of the lease, the implicit value goes unrecognized. One rancher benefits at the expense of all. As the IRS will tell you, not all economic benefits involve money changing hands. Is the lease worth the money generated? Only the agency policy makers will decide, since the subject is too dry for most voters, and adequate discussion is too long to fit neatly in a newspaper column. And when the public at large is confused, influence of issues by commercial interests can be bought cheaply. Now I'm starting to get depressed about the whole issue.

[Kenny]

Wow!
Rob, I have to ask....
When you go hiking, can you relax and have a good time?
After reading this thread, I would like to buy you a trailhead gift card for the Tonto National Forest, but I think you would worry too much about how much I paid for it

You need to take a hike .... I mean that in a nice way

Kenny

[Lizard]

http://www.taxpayer.net/forest/lostinth ... /index.htm

The thing that irritates me is that the forest service continues to subsidize extractive industries like logging and mining while making low impact activities like hiking "pay to play." If the business side of the USFS (timber sales and the like) was properly managed, hikers would not be paying and in fact the forest service would actually be turning a profit that could be used to reduce the national debt.

[joebartels]

· As U.S. citizens we have already paid taxes for professional management of our public lands.
· Once fees are implemented, history shows they increase over time.
· While these fees may not seem excessive to some now, we have watched fees at other sites, i.e.. National Parks, double in one year.
· We believe it is the right of all Americans to have free access to these lands, not the right of only those who can afford to pay fees.
· We believe it is unlikely that the fee program will benefit public lands. History shows fees returning to the general fund once fee program is established. Despite claims that that money will return to the site where it was collected, Congress historically cuts the agency's operating budget by the same amount as the amount of fee money returning to the site.
· We oppose plans to charge users of backcountry and undeveloped areas to pay for development of campgrounds and "front country" they are not, and may have no intention, of using.
· We believe that Congress should re-evaluate its priorities and allocate sufficient funds for the proper management of these cherished resources, held dear to all Americans.

I agree with the statements of this petition 100%
However I don't agree with just taking it away, there needs to be a plan in place.
If links were included on other plans to keep the wilderness in check I'd support it hands down.

There isn't any mention of a plan (and especially one that I feel will work and be supported) to rebuget the taxes I already pay to keep high impact areas up with demand. I asked for examples. My question was turned around and never answered.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The general senario that runs in the back of my mind is this.

Sedona and the western Superstitions have Fee Demo.
A - I feel safe parking at the trailheads and the land is clean & maintained.

Fossil Springs and Bell Crossing don't have Fee Demo.
Statement "A" doesn't hold true from my experiences.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree the general structure of Fee Demo has issues.

I understand and agree with the point that we can't build more trailheads and continue improving access.

The little time I get to enjoy the wilderness is my time.
I don't want to go on cleaning missions when $4 has proven to solve the problem. Fee Demo may not be the answer but then please offer what is.

Great points by all that have made me do some serious thinking. Thanks to all, but I'm not really sure where I stand at this point.