Fee Demo update - Your help is needed!

[hikeaz]

Breaking News

Forest Service Fee Watch

BLM Fee Watch




Dear Public Lands Supporter,

This year's Congressional Summer Recess is a good time to pause and take stock of where things stand in the movement to free our public lands from access fees. Here's an update of recent developments and ongoing efforts.

S.2438 The Fee Repeal and Expanded Access Act

The Fee Repeal Act was introduced into the U.S. Senate in December, 2007, 4 months to the day following the unexpected death of Robert Funkhouser, co-founder and first President of the 'No Fee Cooalition'.. Without Robert's ceaseless efforts the bill would never have happened, and it is heartbreaking that he was not there to celebrate.
The celebration was brief, however, because now comes the hard work of getting the bill passed. It has four powerful sponsors: Max Baucus (MT), Mike Crapo (ID), Jon Tester (MT), and Ken Salazar (CO), but it has to get through the committee process before it can move to the floor for a vote.
It has been assigned to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and is expected to be heard in the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. We are pushing for a hearing in September, because after that it's hard to be noticed above all the election-year noise. The bill must get a majority vote in the full Committee to move forward.
You can read more about the bill and its effects, and link to a non-partisan national legislative watch website where you can cast your vote in favor of the bill HERE.
What You Can Do: Contact the leadership of the Committee and Subcommittee, and urge them to schedule S.2438 for a hearing as soon as possible: Committee Chair: Jeff Bingaman (NM) 202-224-5521, Committee Ranking Member: Pete Domenici (NM) 202-224-6621, Subcommittee Chair: Ron Wyden (OR) 202-224-5244, Subcommittee Ranking Member: John Barrasso (WY) 202-224-6441.
Contact your own Senators and ask them to co-sponsor S.2438. If your Senator is on the Committee, your call carries extra weight.
Contact information google senate

House Hearing on Fee Implementation

On June 18, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held an important hearing on the implementation of the current fee law, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, or RAT for short. (Recreation Access Tax).
Chairman Raul Grijalva (AZ) opened the hearing with a moving opening statement about Congress's commitment to free public access to public lands, and his statement was backed with a slide show of fee areas across the country.
Witnesses for the Forest Service (Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey) and Department of Interior (Deputy Secretary of Interior Lynn Scarlett) then testified, claiming that the fees are popular and are working great. (Yeah, riiight)
They received an intense grilling from the Subcommittee members, and their responses were evasive at best and downright misleading at worst. It was pretty clear that they are completely out of touch with the intense anger and opposition that most Americans feel when they are charged money for access to lands that they already own and pay to maintain with their hard-earned taxes.
The second panel of witnesses kicked off with Idaho State Representative George Eskridge, who sponsored Idaho's unanimous state resolution calling for repeal of the RAT. He was followed by Western Slope No-Fee Coalition President Kitty Benzar, National Recreation and Park Association's Richard Dolesh, Bill Wade, who heads the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and Peter Wiechers, a teacher and kayaker from California.
A completely different picture emerged from this panel, one that shows people being priced out of their own public lands, local economies trying to cope with declining visitation, working families (and their kids) staying home because they can't afford to visit the great outdoors, and agencies unable or unwilling to account for millions of dollars in fee revenue, much of it being charged under legally questionable circumstances.
The anti-fee witnesses carried the day, and there are strong indications that a Repeal Bill will be introduced in the House as a companion to S.2438 in the Senate. We will let you know the moment that happens.

What You Can Do: Contact the Subcommittee Leadership and thank them for holding the hearing. Urge them to introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Subcommittee Chair: Raul Grijalva (AZ) 202-225-2435, Subcommittee Ranking Member: Rob Bishop (UT) 202-225-0453.
Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. If your Representative sits on the House Natural Resources Committee, your call carries extra weight. View a list of Committee Members HERE >> Contact information: google house gov

The RecRACs Keep (Steam)Rolling Along

Beginning in 2007, the Forest Service and BLM Recreation Resource Advisory Committees have been coming on line and beginning their work.
Known as RecRACS, they are mandated by the fee law and are supposed to act as representatives of the public, recommending for or against new fee areas and fee increases.
Each RecRAC consists of a spectrum of users, including recreationists, local and tribal governments, guides and outfitters, and environmental groups. In some areas new committees were established, in others existing BLM advisory groups are being used. A few states (AK, NE, WY) have opted out of the RecRAC process, at the request of their Governors. You can see an interactive map at the Forest Service's RecRAC website.
The RecRAC members are selected and appointed by the agencies themselves, and the members all represent groups that are beholden to the Forest Service and BLM for their particular activity or area of interest. They are selected because they are likely to do the agencies' bidding. (gee... ya THINK?)
The results are about what you would expect: a virtual assembly-line of fee approvals.
To date, the RecRACs have approved at least 494 Fee Increases and 218 New Fee Sites (see our Box Score of Fee Proposals).
They have questioned only 35 fee proposals, of which 19 were denied or tabled, and 16 withdrawn by the agencies - to be reworked and brought back another day.
That's 747 fee proposals in just over one year, of which 712, or 95%, have been approved. If you think that's because they were reasonable proposals, supported by the general public and in conformity with the law, well think again.
The general public didn't even know about most of these new and increased fees until they were a done deal, even though public support is required by law.
Here are just a few of the problems.
a.. Meetings have ALL been held on weekdays, during the day.
b.. Meetings have been held by teleconference, and email meetings are authorized.
c.. Many of the meetings have never been publicly announced at all.
d.. Meeting dates and times have been changed at the last minute.
e.. Agendas have not been made available in advance.
f.. Agenda items have been added at the last minute without public notice.
g.. RecRACs have been asked - and have agreed - to "pre-approve" fee increases up to a certain percentage.
h.. Comments sent in about fee proposals by the public have been withheld from, or misrepresented to, the RecRAC members by agency spokespersons.
i.. Minutes of meetings have not been posted for months, or not posted at all.
The RecRACS are nothing but grease on the wheels of the fee steamroller as it barrels down the highway, smashing the concept of public lands like so much roadkill.
The process is a sham of public participation, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
What You Can Do: Get familiar with the past activities of the RecRAC for your area (see their website) make contact with the members, and watch their website for meeting notices.
When you find out about a meeting, be sure to submit comments, encourage others to submit comments, and attend the meeting in person if you can. Make it impossible for them to claim that they have general public support.
This approach has stopped a few fee proposals. If you get involved it can stop many more.

Recreation Facility Analysis

The Forest Service's Recreation Facility Analysis is almost done. After three years of persistent effort, The NFC has now obtained about 80% of the individual Forests' RFA 5-Year Plans. Here's what they show:

a.. At least 1,344 developed recreation sites will be closed, decommissioned, or converted to dispersed use with most of their amenities removed.
b.. At least 1,400 sites will have their season of use shortened.
c.. At least 1,000 sites will have facilities like toilets, picnic tables, and fire rings removed. (uhhh... Why?)
d.. At least 278 sites will have drinking water or waste water systems closed down.
e.. At least 522 sites will have services like toilet cleaning and trash pickup reduced.
f.. At least 948 fee sites will have the fee increased.
g.. At least 732 new fees will be implemented at sites currently free.
h.. At least 405 sites will get stepped-up fee enforcement.
i.. At least 1,139 sites currently operated by the Forest Service wil be turned over to concessionaires, volunteers, local governments, or prison labor to run.
RFA (formerly Recreation Site Facility Master Planning or RSFMP) continues to be a largely internal process with minimal, shallow, and disjointed public participation.
We stand by the position that any planning effort that has such a substantial impact on our National Forests should be conducted under the rules and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. You can read more about RFA/RSFMP, including analysis reports, agency documents, and individual Forest plans, at our website HERE.

What You Can Do: Find the RFA 5-Year Plan for your local National Forest(s) on the NFC website, and check the Table of Tasks to see what they have in store. If they are still accepting comments, send some.
If they are planning to close or decommission areas that you think should stay open, remove facilities that you think should remain, add fees to areas that are now free, or increase existing fees, contact your elected officials (national, state, and local) and make a fuss.

Please enjoy the rest of the summer. I hope you are spending time outdoors with your family and introducing your kids to the beauty of THEIR public lands.

Congress comes back into session on September 8. With action pending in both the Senate and House to repeal the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act; we are in a great place, thanks to your support and perseverence.

[azdesertfather]

I heard on NPR today that they've now approved to raise the rates for being on state trust land. Instead of there being a fee of $15/person and $20/family, it's going up to $50/person and $75/family! I didn't even know this was expected of those who were out there.

[joebartels]

I think that's per year, but still... dang

[azdesertfather]

yes, that's correct. sorry i forgot to put that in. anyone know more about what this entails? anytime you're on the land for anything, not just camping i'm thinking?

[Hoffmaster]

You must buy a permit for any activity you intend to do on State Trust Land. It's amazing that you didn't know that permits were required because the entry and exit points at most State Trust Lands are usually plastered with signs telling you that such permits are necessary. I ignore them, but I hardly ever use State Trust Land. The last time I did was the Fantasy Island mtn bike area in Tucson. It was lame and I would have been pissed if I had paid. I've heard horror stories of people having their bikes confiscated after they were caught illegally riding on State Trust Land near Oracle. I say, take your chances. Who's patrolling? And if anyone is, you can probably run faster than them anyway.

[azdesertfather]

i don't know when i've ever been on state trust land, actually. if i was, it was in an area where signs WEREN'T posted. are many of the haz posted hikes on this land? i'm assuming that if they are, it's noted in the posts...

[Hoffmaster]

I can't think of any hikes that go thru State Trust Land. I don't have a map in front of me though.

[joebartels]

Not many, there's a couple up. Black Point Ridge is among the closest to the valley posted on site. On that one you enter a fenced in section with grazing cattle. If you follow the link under "Permits" at the bottom of the page you can see a map (under the "Maps" tab then click "Start Map Server"). It shows all the trust sections.

Looks like those outrageous fees are active now

[big_load]

I'd be happy to pay the $50/year if the state trust ownership was more than a mechanism to hold land until development and mining interests are ready to use it. We have a similar problem with open space preservation in NJ . Voters overwhelmingly supported establishment of the program and voted higher taxes on themselves to acquire the land (mainly farms), only to have the legislature permit ever-expanding forms of development on the "preserved" lands.

[azbackpackr]

I hike and bike on State Trust lands all the time. No one bothers me. There are thousands of acres of this land all around here where I live. It's all high-elevation prairie grasslands. I suppose I should try to find out if anyone is policing these areas. But I have never heard of anyone getting ticketed up here for violations.

[Jeffshadows]

I hike and bike on State Trust lands all the time. No one bothers me. There are thousands of acres of this land all around here where I live. It's all high-elevation prairie grasslands. I suppose I should try to find out if anyone is policing these areas. But I have never heard of anyone getting ticketed up here for violations.

There are lots of hikes that cross state trust land here in the southern part of the state, but few of them are very popular. The only one I can think of that might have name recognition is a section of the Great Western Trail near Patagonia. OHVs are much larger users of state trust lands. I've heard that the rise in popularity of OHV use is contributing to the price increase to pay for restoration and enforcement, of which there is a massive gap. That's by no means fact, just what I heard "through the grapevine".

[Sun_Ray]

I did an all day hike, early this year, with an former employee of the State Land Trust . He told me there are only TWO law enforcement agents policing these thousands of acres. They are after the gross abusers (ATV's, marihuana growers, etc) not the hikers. He does not buy an annual permit.

[joebartels]

That explains the long line down on Adams street waiting for permits recently

[Grasshopper]

He does not buy an annual permit.

Well, that kind-of says it all!

[Jeffshadows]

I used to buy one every year and it was a huge pain in the neck; you have to mail a check or money order in after filling out a form. Nothing online, or FAX, etc. Then they mail you back a hanging placard with your handwritten form stapled to it with a number written on it. Talk about potential for abuse\forgery and unnecessary red tape!!