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 .

[clutch7]

In response to bigracket1's reply:
Excellent points, bigracket.
There is a major difference in levying use fees for high-use areas (close to metros, etc.) and levying fees for wilderness areas; however, none of the legislation being pushed thru Congress makes that distinction (one consideration that has been mentioned but that is being fought already by big business bureaucrats is to continue with fee demo in National Parks only-- an option which I am not opposed to since these are high-use areas that generally provide a commercial 'wilderness' experience anyway).

If anyone wants contact info for Senators and Representatives from AZ and others on the Committee, I'd be happy to send that info to you.

The vote is this Wednesday!

[clutch7]

I thought some of you might appreciate an update, especially for those who participated in this discussion: (the following quote is from the aznofee.org website)

“In what is being called a 'remarkable victory,' opponents of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program are today celebrating what they see as the beginning of the end of recreation fees on the National Forests and other public lands.

Despite enormous pressure from the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture to make the Fee Demo program permanent for the National Parks, Forest Service, BLM, and US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee this morning unanimously voted to pass S. 1107, the Recreational Fee Authority Act (Senator Craig Thomas, R-WY), which makes recreation fees permanent for the National Parks only. The bill will allow Fee Demo to lapse for the BLM, US Forest Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service.”


I think this is a wise decision by our legislators. Let's see how it works in a small controlled environment first, like National Parks, before we implement it throughout our wildlands. Besides, how much more commercialized can our National Parks become.....well, I have a feeling we are about to find out.

[clutch7]

I thought I'd bump this old thread since it includes a bit of history and some great comments from BigRacket. Anyway, a lot has transpired in the last 3 years and most of it has not been good for America's primitive areas and/or natural treasures. For example, the forest service, even with the huge increase in revenue from these fee programs, has recently decided to close numerous developed recreation sites, citing a need to cut costs. It certainly corroborates what many were saying 3 years (including myself) regarding the way in which the monies from these increases fees would be used, or should I say misused. Perhaps if the forest service spent less money on building roads for logging companies, they'd have enough left over to keep a 6-site "developed" campground in the Chiricahuas open. The fact is, that even with a substantial increase in revenue for recreation fees, logging and other commercial ventures have increased significantly in the past 3 years. Under-regulated mining is another example of corporations privately profiting from public lands, against public will. Here in Tucson, the Santa Ritas are about to be permanently disfigured in spite of a significant majority of the population opposing the mining claim. Nevertheless, there is cause for renewed optimism:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/ba ... /#comments

This legislation appears to have strong support in Washington. After all, the fee demo program has been a miserable failure and has not improved the situation for either constituent. For example, it has not made the Forest Service operate more efficiently nor has it improved facilities (site are actually slated to be closed), and it certainly has not improved access. There are many families in the Tucson area that cannot afford to visit Saguaro Nat. Park and if prices are allowed to increase indefinitely, many more will lose access.

As the vote for this bill approaches, I urge those of you on this site who value healthy wild lands for all to contact your legislators and demand that they make the effort, this time, to become educated on this very important matter.

Kevin

[chumley]

I think its important to clarify a common misconception regarding the National Forest Service. Forests are NOT "Wilderness" areas. National Forests are managed for "multiple-uses" and were always intended to serve the "greatest good" of the people. This has always included corporate interests including mining, timber, cattle grazing, and recreation, among other things. Sometimes so-called "corporate" interests are in fact the interests of the majority of the people. (Most of us don't consume only what we find/grow in our own yard while living in a house made of ?).

There is certainly much valid debate on how the National Forest Service is (mis-)managed, (under-)funded, and how the "greatest good" is being served, but whether think they should be or not, forest lands are not "reserved" for a pure wilderness experience. (exception of course being specifically designated "wilderness areas")

On this topic, there was a movie released a couple of years ago titled "The Greatest Good" that I never managed to see, though it was screened at NAU, and I believe also aired on PBS stations as well. There's a trailer at this site which I highly recommend viewing: http://www.fs.fed.us/greatestgood/.

I suspect that this movie addresses many of the questions and arguments discussed in this thread, though as stated in the trailer, since the forests are to be managed for the people, and people don't agree on everything, there is no way that people will ever agree on how forests are managed. It's just the way it is.

[bigracket1]

I watched that trailer for the Forest Service DVDs. Reading between the lines, the commercial interests of grazing, logging and mining compete against the recreational interests, and it all gets resolved by your regional FS office after they field complaints in every direction, until someone in some Senate staffer's office throws a few lines into an appropriations bill when nobody is looking. Even without watching the whole DVD series, I can just feel the tension build. So many interests involved! So many competing priorities! How can we resolve these problems so that everyone benefits? To paraphrase Smokey, only YOU can make your voice heard as an activist for one side or the other. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

It's been almost four years since this thread was active, and I had a chance to re-read some of my earlier postings. Quite a few things have changed for me. Now I make a respectable living and don't really have to worry about $4-6. Somehow, I've avoided all those pay stations in the Tonto forest anyway in the last few years, and I can hike Superstition Mt. from three sides without paying a fee, for example. And make no mistake, my sentiment is still the same as four years ago, even if my need to hold onto every spare dollar is not. I still have the same compact sedan that goes on plenty of gravel and dirt roads where it was never intended to be driven, but that car doesn't roll up to a fee station too often.

I noticed that I never answered Joe's question about what the "answer" is when it comes to balancing the price of admission with cleaner, more secure areas. My answer is that it is a foregone conclusion that certain areas will be domesticated to a great extent, and fees will be collected. Since the conclusion is a given, no answer is really required. Places like Seven Springs, Peralta, and the Lost Dutchman trailhead are all too close to town to fend off the masses for long. If Coconino NF had a fee project (other than the entire Sedona area), Fossil Springs, Wet Beaver, Clear Creek near Bull Pen Ranch and even Humphreys would be prime targets for fee boxes. You know that idea wouldn't fly because you'd get too many complaints from the Flagstaff locals. It begs the question - how does the Tonto NF get away with it? One holiday weekend I saw literally a hundred cars at the trailhead by Bull Pen, and most of the people, including myself that day, didn't go more than a mile from the parking area. I'm sensitive to the car security issue as well, since I had my car broken into in 2005 when I left it at the Grand Canyon NP near Bright Angel Lodge. So there's a reminder for you that rangers and admission fees don't solve quite all of your problems.