|   Let's end the fee demo program | Tommy Titus
Oct 21, 2003 12:26 PM | | Should we have to pay to enter federally owned public lands? Does it
seem fair to have to pay to access backcountry trails. The people
behind the Demonstration Fee program, which has been around since the
mid-'90s on a "trial" basis, like the idea. Congress has extended the
program several times, and is about to extend it for another two
years.
MTBAccess supports funding for trails, but we think it's a bad idea
and a bad precedent.
"Requiring people to pay $5 each time they visit our national forests
and other federal public lands is an abdication of the government's
responsibility to properly care for the priceless assets entrusted to
our land management agencies," said Jennifer Klausner, president of
MTBAccess. "If Congress can spend trillions of dollars in foreign
aid, they should be able to come up with a few million to keep our
public lands maintained."
Klausner urged mountain bicyclists and others who feel the Demo Fee
program is wrong to Contact House and Senate Interior Appropriations
Conference Committee Members, who will be deciding whether to extend
the controversial Fee Demo program in the next week or so.
For more information and a list of the members of Congress and their
phone numbers, go to http://www.mtbaccess.com and read the first item
under Trail News.
--mark |
| why end the fee demo program before we have other funding | smilycook
Oct 22, 2003 12:15 PM | | I don't know who pays $5 every time they visit a trail. I just buy the annual pass and not worry about paying every time. I think as long as the money is used where it was collected then the program is helpful. I have noticed a fair amount of trailhead improvements in Idaho since the program went into effect. More trailheads have port-a-potties, which is nice if the trailhead is popular so you don't have people going the bathroom everywhere.
Before we cut the fee demo program we should make sure there is guarenteed funding from another source.
Chris
Boise, ID |
| why end the fee demo program before we have other funding | seenvic
Oct 23, 2003 7:30 AM | | Chris wrote:
"Before we cut the fee demo program we should make sure there is guarenteed funding from another source."
W/out making a statement on the Fee Demo program, I'd say the above statement is like the old "chicken and egg" problem. Critics of Fee Demo claim the program is ripe to replace funding that once existed for these locations. Proponets say the Fee Demo funds are in addition to the old methods of funding. As Fee Demo becomes more wide spread, will it lead to more or less "line item" or "appropiated" funding? I dunno. My gut feeling is less appropiated funding. Critics of Fee Demo think that the program is designed to replace the old appropiated funding and that finding new sources of appropiations is not gonna happen as Fee Demo spreads thru out the country. Not sure who is right, or if Fee Demo is good or bad. Good topic. I'd like to learn more. |
| I agree this is a good topic. Can somebody provide... | The Preacher
Oct 23, 2003 11:43 AM | | ...factual numbers? Personally, I don't mind springing for the annual passes. But how are the funds actually used?? I would love to see a PL statement, or some other factual document.
One thing I just noticed is that my pass only covers Southern California NFs. I'm heading a little father north this weekend, and I guess I will have to buy another pass when I get there. The passes -- at least the annual ones -- should cover all the NFs, not just local ones.
|
| here are some numbers | smilycook
Oct 23, 2003 1:03 PM | | go to this site to look at money collected compared to the cost to collect the money.
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/feedemo/projects02/2002_internet_spreadsheet.html
In my nearby forest that charges a fee the Sawtooth the cost of collecting the money was only 7% of gross, which seems pretty good to me. Some areas are higher, but I think that depends a lot on the willingness of people to pay in different areas.
Here is a breakdown of some of the projects in the sawtooths:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sawtooth/recfee2002.htm
How much do you pay to go out to a movie or dinner each week. For that amount of money you could buy and annual pass and join IMBA and MTBaccess.
Chris |
| Wow... thanks, smilycook! | The Preacher
Oct 23, 2003 2:41 PM | | Those are some very comprehensive numbers! Question (maybe a dumb one): what is the "Vis." in Vis. Serv. & Ops.? Even without knowing this definition, these reports indicate to me that it is not a bad program, considering that one of the largest allocations of the funds is to Maintenance, as it should be. |
| Wow... thanks, smilycook! | seenvic
Oct 24, 2003 6:25 AM | | Chris - thanks for the numbers. I'd love to see the figures broken down for my local forest.
As for the uses of the funds and that maintenance is getting a large chunk of it - good and bad from what I see happening locally.
Good. Fee demo raised a net $31M last year, that is 60% of the $50M that RTP Grants hand out. My local USFS contacts use Fee Demo to match RTP grants - and the funds are not considered to be "federal" in nature because the Fee Demo funds are not "appropiated". This means that the USFS can get $100K grant and use $25K fee demo funds to match it (20% of the total $125K) and this is cool. If the funds were appropiated, the federal contribution to the match would be $20K and the other $5K would have to come from a non-federal source.
Bad. This is not really a "bad" on fee demo, but a "bad" on the federal bureaucracy. What I see in my neck of the woods is that several moto trails pump alot of $$$ into Fee Demo. The money is spent on "maintenance" of the existing trails. The trails themselves are not designed to be sustainable, so it is a vicous circle of paying to ride unsustainable trails while the money is spent on making the trails "rideable" for another season. Again, not the fault of Fee Demo, but I wonder if Fee Demo perpetuates the cycle. The solution is to use Fee Demo $$$ to design and construct moto trails on the contour w/ proper drainage etc....and slowly close and re-veg the old trails. Again, I understand this is not the Fee Demo's problem, but Fee Demo could fund the solution.
I plan to contact my local USFS office to get the skinny on revenues/expendatures on my forest. Thanks for the numbers provided here.
Bill Victor |
| Update on recent trip... | The Preacher
Oct 30, 2003 11:14 AM | | ... to Sequoia Nat'l Forest: I did not see one sign stating the requirement of an Adventure Pass, nor did I see any location where they were offered for sale, nor did I see any in use. Isn't the program supposed to be for ALL National Forests? |
| There is growing opposition in Congress. | dave54
Oct 24, 2003 8:26 AM | | Congressmen with fee demo areas in their districts are taking a lot of heat from constituents. The fee concept is seen as patently unfair to locals who live within the fee areas and must pay to access their own homes. One proposal recently floated would have an annual national pass ($85 was floated, but that number will change) required by all people -- even locals that live in communities inside the National Forests. Needless to say having to pay to commute to work on a state highway that happens to pass through a National Forest did not go over well. It certainly does not thrill me. |
| locals who live within the fee areas and must pay to access... | The Preacher
Oct 24, 2003 9:11 AM | | No, that would be a bad thing, definitely. It certainly is a program that could use some tweaking. Isn't that unusual for our government?? ;-) |
| Did you make this up, because this sounds ridiculus | smilycook
Oct 24, 2003 10:30 AM | | I have never been to a fee demo national forest where you had to pay to drive on the road. If you live near a national park then you may have to pay a fee to drive through the national park.
The fee demo program collects money at designated parking areas owned by the goverment. Where is this place where a resident has to pay to park at a private residence, because I don't believe you.
Chris |
| Here's the article. | dave54
Oct 24, 2003 12:57 PM | | October 20, 2003 Rocky Mountain News
Critics pan for land use fee
By Ellen Miller, Special To The News
GRAND JUNCTION - A proposal by seven Eastern congressmen to charge fees of $85 or more annually to visit public lands has Western states land activists up in arms.
"What this means is you'd be a criminal every time you left the city limits," Kitty Benzar, co-founder of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, said Friday. "We're told it would be at least $85, and these congressmen are from states with very little federal land so there's little impact on their constituents."
The proposal, introduced earlier this month as a resolution by Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, would make permanent the recreation fee demonstration program, which for several years has been collecting money for public access to selected areas, including some in Colorado.
Republican congressmen from Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Wisconsin make up the plan's other six co-sponsors.
Benzar, of Durango, said the proposal would require citizens to buy an "America the Beautiful Pass" in order to use any public lands, whether they are administered by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Supporters of recreation fees say the money is sorely needed by federal land managers for maintenance; construction of restrooms, campgrounds and parking lots; and law enforcement and trash pickup, among other things.
Western senators and congressmen, many of whom initially favored the demonstration program, are not convinced the money is being used for its intended purpose.
Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., has backed away from his support for recreation fees, holding a hearing several weeks ago highly critical of the land agencies' management of the funds that were collected.
"Scott's not supporting (Regula's bill)," said Blair Jones, McInnis' spokesman. "He's not happy with the program.
"This (bill) will have to go through the Natural Resources Committee, and that means Scott's subcommittee, so that'll be it."
Sean Conway, chief of staff for Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and a vocal critic of the fee demo program, said if Regula's proposal "somehow makes it out of the House, it's certain to die a quick death in the Senate."
"These public lands policies are drawn up by people who don't live and work out here," Conway said. "It's people whose districts are not affected. I can tell you Senator Allard will not consent, and I can't imagine that other Western senators would, either."
The problem of keeping up with maintenance backlogs in national parks and other public lands has plagued the land management agencies for years. Conway said Congress should address the problems through general agency appropriations instead of trying to load the fees on Westerners.
"Most Eastern national parks have no fees, no entrance fees, no nothing," he said. "But when we drive up to Rocky Mountain National Park or Yellowstone or any other of the crown jewels of the national parks, we pay entrance fees. What we're doing is subsidizing the Eastern parks that don't charge anything." |
| hmm... why don't we focus on the current program and check facts | smilycook
Oct 27, 2003 8:00 AM | | Your article is on a proposal for a new fee demo program and a new annual fee.
Why don't we focus on the current fee demo program, which works well in areas where the program is run efficently. An administrative cost of only 7% to collect fees in the sawtooth national forest is a hell of a lot better than some non-profit organizations and regular fedral appropiations. For example a fedral appropiatation of 2 million dollars to the BLM. From this 2 million up to 60% is allowed to be used on administrative cost, of course that does not mean they will spend 60% but just the fact that are allowed to is shocking. So the fee demo seems like a fairly efficent program compared to a federal appropiation.
Lets take the areas where the fee demo is efficent and use that model across the country.
Oh and another way the fee demo is used is to match a RTP grants from the fedral goverment, which makes it possible for the FS to secure more RTP grants.
Oh and that last quote in your article about the eastern national parks having no fees is untrue. Here is just couple I can think of off the top of my head. I think there is only four national parks on the east coast, there is more than that in utah.
For example:
Shenanodoah national Park: Skyline drive fee, traverse across the park
Whitemountains National Forest: Parking Pass required at major trailheads.
Everglades NP: Park fee
Chris
Boise, ID |
| |
