HikeArizona.COM

ACTION ALERT ON FOREST & BLM FEES


SENATE HEARING TO REVIEW EXCESSIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEES AND PERMITS AT FOREST SERVICE AND BLM FEE SITES


HELP ROLL BACK THIS RECREATION ACCESS TAX


On Wednesday, October 26 at 2 pm, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold an Oversight Hearing on implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) by the Forest Service and the BLM.



As you know, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act became law in December after being attached to the must pass appropriations omnibus bill, and made the Fee Demo program permanent. While this bill contains some apparently restrictive language regarding the scope of implementation, it does little to roll back current Fee Demo sites or limit the expansion of fees to new areas and has led to widespread excesses in Forest Service and BLM implementation of fees and permits for accessing our public lands.


The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition (WSNFC) is working with groups, individuals, local and state governments in different parts of the nation to roll back the FLREA and in this we need your help. Below are several action items that you or your organization can partake in, to help protect your ownership of and access to America's public lands.


The hearing on the 26th is to hear testimony on growing evidence that these agencies are not implementing their fee authority in compliance with the specifics in the law. The WSNFC has been conducting Fee Site Surveys of Forest Service and BLM fee sites to determine if the agencies' implementation of the FLREA conforms to the law. The Fee Site Survey Report and Analysis will be released on the day of the hearing.





The Fee Site Survey Report has found three main areas of agency non-compliance:


1) High Impact Recreation Areas (HIRAs) are not authorized in the law, but are being implemented as FS and BLM policy. These are groups of recreation sites with little or no federal investment, that fall under one umbrella fee. Many of these HIRAs encompass tens or hundreds of thousands of acres. These are de facto entrance fees, which are prohibited on Forest Service or BLM land by language in the FLREA.




2) Trailhead Fees are being charged at thousands of hiking, horseback, mountain bike and OHV trailheads nationwide. The FLREA prohibits charging for general access to the backcountry - but by charging a trailhead fee, usually for parking, they are essentially doing just that. Most of these trailheads lack the six amenities required for fees at day-use sites, but even when all six amenities are present these fees are not in compliance with the FLREA's provisions against charging for access to backcountry.




3) Special Recreation Permits, which used to apply only to large organized events and commercial uses such as outfitters/guides, are now being required for individual private use. SRPs are being required for hiking or horseback riding in Wilderness Areas, for OHV and mountain biking use and for other undeveloped backcountry areas. They are a charge for a particular type of recreation, rather than for use of a particular facility. This violates the prohibitions in the FLREA against charging for general access or for just passing through an area without using any facilities.





Most Senate hearings can be heard online in real time.
Specific information about this one has not yet been announced.
If you would like to listen, check the Senate Energy Committee's website for details.
http://energy.senate.gov/public/
There's a link for "Live Webcast" at the bottom of the list on the left hand side of the page.
The Hearing is scheduled for 2 PM Eastern, Wednesday, October 26th.







WHAT TO DO:


1. It is essential that your two Senators hear loud and clear that these are important issues to you. Please call or write both of your U.S. Senators. Letters have the most impact, and should be faxed to avoid delays caused by increased postal security. The deadline is 11.04.05


If one of your Senators is on the Public Lands Subcommittee (see below for list) be sure to urge them to attend this hearing. If there is an example of a non-compliant fee area near you, tell them about it. You can obtain addresses and fax numbers for your Senators from the Senate website, http://www.senate.gov You can also contact any Senate office by phone via the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121, and then ask the office for the fax number.


(For CA - Sen. Dianne Feinstein (ph) 202-224-3841 (fax) 202-228-3954.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (ph) 202-224-3553 (fax) 415-956-6701.)







2. Submit written testimony to be included in the official record of the Hearing. You can do this by e-mail to Kristina_Rolph@energy.senate.gov UNTIL November 4th. [NOTE, that's an underscore between Kristina and Rolph] Be sure to mention any non-compliant fee sites near you, and ask that your message be entered as official testimony into the Hearing Record.


It is vital to include the following information in your email: To the public record for the 10.26.05 2 pm Public Lands & Forests subommittee hearing on the implementation of the FLREA. Also, your name and mailing address. (Without these, your email will not become part of the public record.)




3. Contact Members of the Public Lands Subcommittee and tell them about non-compliant sites. Urge them to attend the Hearing. Let them know how important public access to public lands is to you and that the FLREA is limiting your use of your public land.






WHO TO CONTACT ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Here is the contact info for members of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (The first four are the most important, but please don't neglect them




Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM); P; 202-224-6621 F: 202-228-3261


Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); P: 202-224-5521 F: 202-224-2852



Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) (Chairman); P: 202-224-2752 F: 202-228-1067



Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) (Ranking Democrat); P: 202-224-5244 F: 202-228-2717


Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT); P: 202-224-2644 F: 202-224-8594


Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-AK); P: 202-224-6361 F: 202-224-2126


Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY); P: 202-224-6441 F: 202-224-1724



Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND); P: 202-224-2551 F: 202-224-1193



Sen. James Talent (R-MO); P: 202-224-6154 F: 202-228-1518



Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD); P: 202-224-5842 F: 202-228-5765



Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR); P: 202-224-3753 F: 202-228-3997


Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA); P: 202-224-5824 F: 202-224-9735


Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN); P: 202-224-4944 F: 202-228-3398


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); P: 202-224-3841 F: 202-228-3954


Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK); P: 202-224-6665 F: 202-224-5301



Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA); P: 202-224-3441 F: 202-228-0514


Sen. George Allen (R-VA); P: 202-224-4024 F: 202-224-5432

Federal Recreation Fees Under Bipartisan Fire in Washington

Washington, DC - In a public hearing on Wednesday, June 18th, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, chaired by Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), expressed serious concern about recreation fees that are being imposed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and other federal land management agencies.
The hearing was entitled “Paying to Play – Implementation of Fee Authority on Public Lands.” Chairman Grijalva set the tone in his opening statement when he said, “I firmly believe that the American public should not have to pay additional fees to have access to our world class system of parks, forests, refuges and public lands -- whether it be listening to a ranger program in a national park, hiking the wilderness, or enjoying a picnic in the woods in a national forest.”
Five invited witnesses presented evidence of powerful public opposition to recreation fees, lack of accountability for fee revenue, and efforts to exclude the public from fee proposals. The Subcommittee is also taking testimony from the general public by email until July 2nd. According to Grijalva, the Subcommittee has been “inundated” by messages from citizens calling on Congress to repeal the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). Fee authority has been governed by the FLREA since it replaced the Fee Demo program in December 2004.
Idaho State Representative George Eskridge testified about the harm that fees are doing to Idaho’s efforts to promote and develop tourism in the wake of job losses in the declining timber industry.
“We have attempted to adjust to this loss of a major industry by promoting a more robust tourist industry that in part relies on the public taking advantage of the recreational opportunities on the federal lands in our state,” said Eskridge. “The improper implementation of fees for use of these facilities not only is resulting in opposition and dissatisfaction from our Idaho citizens, but I believe will result in a decrease in use of these facilities by the general public, and will result in a significant negative impact to the tourist industry in Idaho, not to mention in the nation in general.”
Western Slope No-Fee Coalition President Kitty Benzar spoke about the increasing number of fee sites and the questionable legality of many fees. She took special aim at the Forest Service’s use of High Impact Recreation Areas, or HIRAs, which are being widely used by the Forest Service although they are not authorized in the law. Within a HIRA, a fee is required for all uses, even those specifically exempted by law from fees such as roadside parking and scenic overlooks. (Like the B.S. Red Rock Pass)
Testifying as an ordinary citizen, California teacher and kayaker Peter Wiechers told the tale of his efforts to obtain information from the Sequoia National Forest that have been “thwarted at every turn.” In his judgment as a teacher, Wiechers said, “the Forest Service has failed their program.”
On the whole, the legislators’ questions were critical of claims by the public lands agencies that there is public support for fees, and that the fees being charged for access to large tracts of public land are within the scope of the law. Agency witnesses Interior Department Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett and Agriculture Department Undersecretary Mark Rey defended their fee programs, but faced tough questions from the Subcommittee.
Hearing co-chair Grace Napolitano (D-CA) observed that, when she was raising her family, they frequently visited public lands. “I doubt that I would have been able to afford them, with five children, if we’d had to pay an additional cost to travel into those areas,” she said.
Peter DeFazio (D-OR) expressed concern about the Forest Service’s accounting for fee revenue, which he says is “disappearing into the maw of the bureaucracy.” His staff has been unable to get an accounting of $350 million in Forest Service fee revenue. “The numbers just don’t add up properly,” he said.
Lois Capps (D-CA) told Rey that, despite his statements that visitors are only charged for amenities they actually use, she has heard from many constituents that the Los Padres National Forest requires them to pay fees for amenities that are far from the places they visit. “It would seem to me that with these HIRAs, the Forest Service is simply using them to get around the letter of the law,” Capps said.
William Sali (R-ID), noting that his state has had a tough time recovering from the loss of the timber industry, said that Idahoans are not unreasonable when they object to having to pay fees to picnic or hike in the same National Forests that “once supported their jobs, put money into their schools, and used to sustain their local economy.”
Jay Inslee (D-WA) said the National Forests in Washington state are “just falling apart” and wondered why, despite fee revenue, roads and trails in the backcountry are not being kept open and in good repair. He said that the Forests in his state are “a disaster from a recreational standpoint.”
Rob Bishop (R-UT) questioned why the agencies are spending fee revenues building new facilities when “we can’t maintain what we already have.”
Both Scarlett and Rey told the Subcommittee that there is ample public participation and that public input into fee decisions is actively sought by the agencies they oversee, but Wiechers disagreed.
“They didn’t even stay to hear my testimony,” he observed. “As soon as they were done speaking, they left. I don’t think they care at all what the public says, and they sure didn’t care to hear what I had to say. It was just rude.”
WSNFC President Benzar expressed satisfaction with the hearing. “The Subcommittee showed great interest in hearing about the kinds of abuses that are brought to my attention daily from all over the country,” she said. “I am optimistic that one or more members will act to end this failed experiment and introduce legislation to repeal the FLREA. Anyone who does that will be a hero in their home District.”
A bill to repeal FLREA is currently pending in the Senate with bipartisan sponsorship led by Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID). No House version has yet been introduced.

google westernslopenofee for more info

I'd buy a lifetime Coronado National Forest pass if they sold one just to avoid having to continue paying $20 every year...even if it cost a grand (I'll be paying that fee for the next fifty years, anyway). I'd, personally, even stop complaining about paying the fee if they could demonstrate that my money was going to work in Coronado and not some place I couldn't care less about...

Yeah, this is getting a bit out of hand. I'm glad someone is trying to do something about it. And to think all this time I thought Raul was a quack! He's doing some good! I'll support that!!!

I have no idea who Raúl Grijalva is or what he has done, but I'll support his opening statement to the House Subcommittee. Fees are a bunch of BS, especially given the fact that I pay for those lands with my taxes. This is just one example of the government double dipping. Many supporters of these fees cite the picnic areas, restrooms, and developed camping created with the fee monies. What a bunch of crap. Why do I want to pay to destroy the wilderness? Thanks for the disgusting picnic area that I'll never use.

If any of you get as riled up as I do over this topic, then I'd think long and hard about who you're going to vote for this coming November if I were you. Actually, we're screwed no matter which way we go.

The way the economy is going no one will be able to afford to drive to most of the fee demonstration areas, let alone pay the fee

With gas quadrupling in the past five years the domino effect on commodities is frightening

What always worries me about situations like this is the possibility that the state might find us easy prey for fees of their own to fix the budget crisis they got us into by subsidizing developers (Among other things)...

Raúl Grijalva: Arizona Congressional District #7 (which covers part of Tucson all the way up to Phoenix south of I-10...those of you in Buckeye--he's your guy...all the way over to Yuma). Grijalva is pro-land conservation, pro-responsible land management. He just enacted a one-year ban on uranium exploration/mining for the Grand Canyon National Park adjacent lands. You'd think that no one would be stupid enough to actually even propose mining for uranium a mere three miles out of the park, but it turns out that the Forest service thinks it's a-ok and gave it the go-ahead, so Grijalva put the skids on it today...at least for a year...check it out:

Tucson Citizen
Stanton: Canyon gets a reprieve that would have made Mo proud
Rep. Raúl Grijalva unearths a legal tactic favored by Morris Udall to keep uranium miners from exploring land around the Grand Canyon for a year
BILLIE STANTON
Published: 06.25.2008
In a slick maneuver perfected by the late, great Mo Udall, U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva Wednesday will get the votes needed to protect the Grand Canyon.
The House Committee on Natural Resources will approve an emergency declaration to halt uranium mining activity on more than 1 million acres there.
Floor debate? We don't need no stinkin' floor debate. Or a vote by the full House or Senate, for that matter.
An emergency can be declared when "extraordinary measures must be taken to preserve (land) values that would otherwise be lost," says Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Such House declarations have been made only four times - all four by Arizona's legendary Rep. Morris K. Udall, a Tucson Democrat.
Udall always said "you can get anything done in the House as long as you know the rules," recalls Tucson's Chris Helms, his former aide and the retired executive director of the Udall Foundation.
And get it done Udall did:
• In 1978, he froze uses of 104 million acres of Alaska, land later carved into national parks, wildlife refuges and conservation areas under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act written by Udall.
• A year later, Udall halted exploratory uranium drilling within the Casita Reservoir Watershed in California.
• In 1981, he forced Interior Secretary James Watt to withdraw 1.5 million acres of forests from mineral leasing in three Montana wilderness areas where the secretary planned to issue oil and gas leases.
• And in 1983, Udall's final emergency declaration withdrew coal leases opposed by Indian tribes in Montana and North Dakota.
Now, 25 years later, Grijalva is following in the footsteps of another great Tucson Democrat.
Grijalva's Grand Canyon resolution, signed by committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., will protect the canyon's buffer zone from uranium exploration for one year.
The Bush administration will challenge the constitutionality of this move, Grijalva predicts.
Udall's emergency declarations prevailed in several challenges and lawsuits, however, and the land policy law hasn't changed.
What's mystifying is the lack of immediate, loud support from a united Arizona delegation.
Only Democratic Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Ed Pastor had expressed support as of this writing.
"If I were our delegation, our esteemed senators, I wouldn't want to be on the side of challenging (the canyon protection)," Grijalva said.
If anything ever deserved full bipartisan support in Arizona, it is the Grand Canyon, one of the world's seven wonders.
Yes, mineral exploration may be tempting, with uranium prices expected to rebound from $57 a pound to $90 a pound, as the International Herald Tribune reported Monday.
But earlier uranium exploration in northern Arizona now is costing the U.S. government tens of millions of dollars in assessments and cleanups.
Cold War mining on the Navajo reservation - in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah - sparked a public health tragedy that still reverberates today. Between 1944 and 1986, more than 4 million tons of uranium were extracted from Navajo land.
Prolonged exposure to uranium is cited in the premature deaths of Navajo miners, and cancer clusters and genetic defects still being passed on.
Contamination of water sources, homes and buildings still is being assessed by federal agencies.
Uranium exploration simply isn't appropriate in the buffer zone of Grand Canyon National Park.
The canyon, the very icon of Arizona, attracts more than 5 million visitors a year from around the world.
Its Colorado River and tributaries support populations from Tucson to Los Angeles to the Colorado River Delta in Mexico.
"The ecological, geological and hydrological connections between the canyon and the lands adjacent to it are formidable and profound," notes Tucson's Robert L. Arnberger, a former superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park who now serves on the executive council of The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
The coalition, with about 650 members representing more than 17,000 years of managing national parks, supports Grijalva's declaration.
"What happens around the park eventually finds its way to the park and vice versa," Arnberger says.
Yet the Forest Service recently approved exploratory drilling for uranium at seven sites within three miles of Grand Canyon National Park.
That's why Grijalva had to get creative and wound up with an emergency declaration a la Udall.
Grijalva's bill, HR 5583, would have taken too long and may never have made it through the current administration.
Now the lands in question must be withdrawn from drilling for a year.
"Hopefully our senators will step in and talk to the administration," Grijalva said in an interview last week.
"Then comes the next hope: We get permanent legislative relief and an administration with a much kinder and gentler view of the Grand Canyon."
Until then, Grijalva deserves thanks - and the protection of our Grand Canyon deserves strong, full support from every Arizona delegation member.

You would think dismantlement of our and the former Soviet's nuclear arsenal would be a better source of uranium...especially since its already enriched *way* beyond reactor fuel level...

I thought the Soviets had "misplaced" a vast majority of their arsenal?

Uranium mining is going to make a huge comeback, The quantity of nuclear power plants are projected to grow 10X within the next 30 years worldwide.

One thing's for sure - it's better than coal!!

Yeah, the plants burn cleaner than coal, but where do you put the spent fuel? There is as yet no good answer to that, and until they come up with a good answer I'm not in favor of nuclear power plants. (By the way, just in case you don't already know this: do yourself a favor and don't sound like an uneducated dunce. That word, "nuclear" is correctly pronounced "nu-clee-er," NOT "nu-cue-lar"--George W's constant mispronunciation alone is enough to send me over the edge...not to mention people I've known in the past who would go out and demonstrate against nuclear power, but couldn't even pronounce the word correctly.)

Nu-clee-er, nu-clee-er. Think of the word "nucleus" and you can remember it.

Anyway, does anyone have any info about what the govt. plans to do with all the waste if they build more nu-clee-er power plants in future? Dump it in the Nevada desert? Shoot it into outer space? Send it to Iran? Pollute the aquifers with it? Dump it into the ocean so the containers can corrode and cause radioactive material to get into the food chain, so we can never eat fish again? Think about it.

Ride a bicycle. Grow a garden.

azbackpackr wrote:Grow a garden.

There has probably never been a better time than now (well, the Great Depression maybe) to do this. With our country's idiotic fascination with ethanol, we can all expect our food prices to soar. It boggles my mind how a country as great as ours can think it is a good idea to burn our food.

azbackpackr wrote:Anyway, does anyone have any info about what the govt. plans to do with all the waste if they build more nu-clee-er power plants in future? Dump it in the Nevada desert? Shoot it into outer space? Send it to Iran? Pollute the aquifers with it? Dump it into the ocean so the containers can corrode and cause radioactive material to get into the food chain, so we can never eat fish again? Think about it.

I'm sure the evil nuclear industry has all of those things in mind and then some. But I suppose the fact that nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy in our country should be overlooked. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm so sick and tired of hearing people complain about high fuel prices and then turn around complain about nuclear energy and drilling for oil in our own country. I don't have time to educate all of you because I have to go work, but you should really do some research before complaining like this. I'm not against the environment, but I am a realistic, practical THINKER!

azbackpackr wrote:Ride a bicycle.

With more and more people in China, India and other developing countries acquiring cars, do you really think that a couple of people riding their bikes to work in this country is going to make a difference? Global warming is a scam propagated by Al Gore. Where is the money for the so-called "carbon credits" going? Think about that. Besides, more CO2 emissions come from the average single-family home on a daily basis than from cars.

People in America want things given to them without much regard for where those things come from. I live in one of the parts of Tucson that is part of the "urban revitalization" movement, but am the only one for three square blocks with solar panels, despite the fact that we have an average of 7.8 solar hours a day here, year-round. Why? Because people don't want to pay for it or be a little inconvenienced. They want th juice to be pumped into their home and don't want to have to think about how it gets there. That leaves those of us intelligent and responsible enough to weigh the options of how to get that juice to the unwashed masses.

New generation pebble-bed reactors are safer than coal plants (Check with OSHA on this) and produce substantially less radioactive waste than the older types. That, and they are among the only sources of power on the planet right now that can be used on a large scale to split water out into hydrogen and oxygen. A very small reactor can produce a tremendous amount of hydrogen which can be burned to fire a boiler to create electricity and produce nothing but water vapor as a byproduct.

The problem with a lot of enviros is they are uneducated, or educated only to the level that they are dangerous. They show up on the U of A mall from time-to-time, making the rest of us look bad, and all you can do is laugh. Then when the coal industry starts their fear campaign about the "nuclear genie" they all come out beating bongos against anything the very thing they should be fighting to the death for: lower greenhouse emissions.

Good! I started a debate! Anyway, I was hoping some of you would post to tell me that the new technology for nuclear reactors is better than the old. That is heartening. And no, I don't keep myself as educated as I should, you are right.

One thing we haven't discussed is the proliferation of a diet top-heavy in beef that is happening in Japan and China. Whereas they used to eat mostly vegetables, the new middle class wants more meat. This change in diet can impact many things world-wide. You can feed a lot more people with the same farm acreage if they are eating a plant-based diet than you can if they want a meat-based diet, basically. Again, there are some of you out there who know more about this than I do. But this is something that has been in the news lately. "Diet for a Small Planet" is a very old idea, whose time has come, in my opinion.

Have you ever been to Eagar, where I live? It is very hard to keep oneself educated here!

However it is a great place to ride a bike and grow a garden! ;)

azbackpackr wrote: Have you ever been to Eagar, where I live? It is very hard to keep oneself educated here! ;)

Are you telling us, "That you can always tell an Eagerite, but you can't tell him much?"

Just kidding of course, as we do appreciate your posts. However sometimes politics and religion just don't fit right on HAZ.

That said, my only wish is that beginning years ago we (the U.S.) would have been building fewer coal fueled generating plants and more nuclear, selected a storage site for nuclear waste and began to use our own oil, which we have hundreds of years worth (and that is an absolute fact).

Lets stop sending our dollars overseas, close the borders, and take care of our own by providing jobs for Americans once again..... ;)

P.S. I didn't like the fee system either and that's why I was a USFS Wilderness volunteer, so I could park free....

Religion? Who me? Hah. Not a chance. I'm a thorough agnostic.

One thing we can all tell you flatlanders, though, and that is how to SPELL Eagar. It's a family name. Lots of them around here. In fact, when I moved here nine years ago, my first boss was a Mr. Eagar. Yikes.

I don't care for the fee system, either. They started it on Mt. Lemmon a couple of years before I moved here. I HIKED up from the desert trailheads to the pines many times--no fee required if you do that! That was before you had to pay to park at Sabino.

It is too bad that the most recent court case regarding someone trying to fight the fees was lost by the defendant.

They don't have the fees in this national forest. There would be no way to enforce it, I don't think.

azbackpackr wrote:Religion? Who me? Hah. Not a chance. I'm a thorough agnostic.

One thing we can all tell you flatlanders, though, and that is how to SPELL Eagar. It's a family name. Lots of them around here. In fact, when I moved here nine years ago, my first boss was a Mr. Eagar. Yikes.

I don't care for the fee system, either. They started it on Mt. Lemmon a couple of years before I moved here. I HIKED up from the desert trailheads to the pines many times--no fee required if you do that! That was before you had to pay to park at Sabino.

It is too bad that the most recent court case regarding someone trying to fight the fees was lost by the defendant.

They don't have the fees in this national forest. There would be no way to enforce it, I don't think.

Interestingly, the guys at the gate of Catalina State Park won't make you pay if you're hiking into the Catalinas, either...

azbackpackr wrote:One thing we can all tell you flatlanders,

You are too funny! You always call everyone outside of your area a "flatlander" even though Eagar and Springerville are flatter than a board. Sure, you've got mountains close by, but so does Phoenix and Tucson. Perhaps you're referring to our friend in Illinois (Eagerite?) but you do use the term often. I'm just commenting because it amuses me.