USFS Fee ruled illegal in AZ

[dvbl]

Why do I always have to straighten you guys out?

The question isn't paying again. The question is about the people who the government forces to pay once for something they don't use.

People who don't use public lands at all are forced to pay taxes for them even though they don't use them. Those of us who use public lands are basically doing so on the backs of these people. Is it too much to ask that we pay an extra $3.00 per trip or $20.00 per year for the priviledge?

Mr. Pen,

You said, People who don't use public lands at all are forced to pay taxes for them even though they don't use them. Well, that's life. People without kids are forced to pay taxes for crappy public schools. The list of similar examples goes on and on.

You said, Those of us who use public lands are basically doing so on the backs of these people. Just partially. The rest of the tab is picked up by...guess who?...those of us who do use the public lands. We also pay those same taxes. We aren't exempt just because we'll be paying at the trailhead. So it is in fact a question of paying twice.

You said, Is it too much to ask that we pay an extra $3.00 per trip or $20.00 per year for the priviledge? Absolutely not. It's the best $20 I spend all year. It's a bargain at 10 times the price.

 

[psmart]

Remember: National Forests were authorized by the Weeks Act of 1911, in order to protect critical watersheds that benefit the entire public. Hence the justification for federal funding from everyone's taxes.

In years past, this funding was adequate to also cover the management of recreational use. But use has grown, and federal appropriations to the National Forests have shrunk, so a user fee was added to supplement the federal funding.

So we all pay a bit for the common benefits of the forest, and those who use it directly are asked to pay a bit more. Although can argue about the exact apportionment, this seems like a reasonable sharing of the costs.

 

[Grumpy]

... I just can't get angry about a small fee like this. But, since I will soon be 62, I will gladly spend $10 for my Golden Age Passport!

The Golden Age Passport is a wonderful deal. I got mine just about a year ago, and it paid for itself within a day!

My GAP sort of makes the Wreckreation Demonstration Fees issue moot for me now. But that doesn't end my concern about the issue and objection to the fees.

What always has bothered me about the fees is that in any given year I may visit and hike in 6-10 different national forests, in addition to National Parks, National Recreation Areas and National Seashores in several states, each with its own daily or annual pass (non-transferable to other units). The use fees are anything but "token" and they really can accumulate in that situation.

Not only that, it's conceivable that I soon may run out of windshield space for all the dratted stickers and decals! (Even after removing the expired ones.)

On the one hand, I certainly can concede that the "user pay" concept seems sensible and reasonable. I can appreciate that my "use" of a given area does bring with it certain "extra" costs to the managing agency, if only the cost of clearing and doing minimal maintenance on a crude parking spot beside the road. The supposed guarantee that 80% of Wreckreation fee money collected will be used to improve infrastructure and "opportunities" in the unit of origin is attractive. That would be value returned for money shelled out.

But even while the Wreckreation fee still was a "demonstration" (rather than permanent) policy, I watched substantial funds diverted out of certain Eastern USA National Forest unit budgets to cover the cost of fighting fires in NF units in the West. Promised improvements supported by the Wreckreation fees in those eastern units never got done, or were put on "hold." I've seen that kind of funding shell game before at all levels of government, so wasn't much surprised. Call me cynical.

Meanwhile, of course, my federal income tax bills continue to come due to support, among other things, the acquisition and management of our National Forest lands across the country -- firefighting included. I am not a cheapskate and don't object to paying my share, as I've done every year for a half century. But I am left to wonder where the proliferation of paying-out requirements really stops, especially for those of us who crave nothing more complicated than a simple and once-upon-a-time economical walk in the woods for our recreation.

End of rant.

G.

 

[TCD]

I think it makes sense that everyone pays for the land, and people who use it directly pay a little more. The trouble is, I don't think that's what's really happening. IIRC, I saw a study a few years ago at the height of the "fee demonstration" project that indicated a shell game was in play. Here's a simplified example:

1. Land Unit XYZ funding from Washington before fee demonstration = $100.
2. Enact $10 fee.
3. Reduce funding from Washington to $90.

Net result, the land unit is still funded at $100 like before. Zero benefit from the fee to the land unit. Effectively, a $10 tax on users has been sucked into Washington to be wasted.

This is the same shell game that many states use with Lottery money that "all goes to education." Sure, it does. But then a corresponding amount is pulled out of the other pocket.

The question to ask at the land unit you use is not "Are my fees staying here?" The trick answer to that is always going to be "yes."

The question to ask is: "Since I started paying fees, what has the effect been on the total funding this land unit has to work with?" The answer to that will be harder to pry out of land managers, but when you get the info, it will reveal whether your "user fees" are benefiting the land you use, or just going for graft in some capital.

TCD

 

[psmart]

I saw a study a few years ago at the height of the "fee demonstration" project that indicated a shell game was in play. Here's a simplified example:

1. Land Unit XYZ funding from Washington before fee demonstration = $100.
2. Enact $10 fee.
3. Reduce funding from Washington to $90.

Net result, the land unit is still funded at $100 like before. Zero benefit from the fee to the land unit. Effectively, a $10 tax on users has been sucked into Washington to be wasted.

Sadly, I fear that's true. There's no doubt this restructuring was designed to trim the federal budget and replace the revenue with a "user pays" system. Unfortunately, the additional administration and bureaucracy eats up a significant chunk of the "extra" revenue. But there isn't much the Forest Service can do about it - the fee demo program (now permanent, I believe), was implemented by congress.

 

[darren]

Oh No!!!!! No more heated bathrooms at trailheads and no new chainsaws for Ranger Dick!!!!! What will we do?!?!?!?!?!

- darren

ps: yes, that was sarcasm in case you couldn't figure it out

I have been told that this comment was "terribly ofensive". So I guess I will explain why I posted it. The reason is that in my eyes the people that have collected the fees have not shown that they can be trusted to spend the money wisely. Heated bathrooms at trailheads are a joke and they are a waste of public funds. Spending public funds to cut down trees because they have paint marks on them is a joke. In my mind, wasting public funds is what is terribly offensive.

When they started the fee program I went along with it and bought my parking passes like a good little doobee. When they wasted my money, they stopped getting my money. Now I refuse to buy a parking pass and if I get a ticket I use it to start my campfire.

- darren

 

[psmart]

The FS has additional information on the fee program at http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/about-rec-fees.shtml You will find reports on income and expenditures part-way down the page.

If you want more information, stop at one of the district offices, (Saco, Pemi, Andro) and ask. The FS is responsive to public input - but only if we ask!

 

[darren]

Thanks, but those reports do not really show any detail at all. You are right, I should talk to the rangers. I would love to know how much the "Wilderness" trailhead heated bathrooms cost and what they were possibly thinking when they built them.

Granted my viewpoint might look narrow minded, but I can not help but express my disappointment. Prior to parking fees I had no problems with the efforts I saw from the FS. I looked at them as the good guys (and gals). After they started collecting the fees, I have constantly seen different instances of money wasted. My opinion has soured and I have a hard time hiding it. At least this time I managed a post without sarcasm.

- darren

 

[David Metsky]

Frankly, I love the bathrooms at Lincoln Woods. And I think much of the casual hiking public does as well. It wouldn't be my first choice for spending money, but it's really nice for changing before the ride home.

-dave-

 

[chipc]

Frankly, I love the bathrooms at Lincoln Woods. And I think much of the casual hiking public does as well.

-dave-

Though clearly not everyone!


http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16558

 

[MichaelJ]

Heated bathrooms at trailheads are a joke and they are a waste of public funds.

While it's certainly nice for the humans, a non-heated bathroom at Lincoln Woods could not have running water. Pit toilets and even composting privies freeze in winter and build up cones of doom. Given the number of people that utilize that parking lot and those facilities, I shudder to think what a mess it would be if it didn't have flush toilets.

 

[Bob]

Making the public pay a fee to use its own public lands, while at the same time providing federal subsidies for timber, cattle, and mining interests on public lands, is not only illogical, but immoral...
the fee receipts do little more than pay for fee collection and enforcement.

 

[darren]

While it's certainly nice for the humans, a non-heated bathroom at Lincoln Woods could not have running water. Pit toilets and even composting privies freeze in winter and build up cones of doom. Given the number of people that utilize that parking lot and those facilities, I shudder to think what a mess it would be if it didn't have flush toilets.

So is there a huge problem at the Franc loop trailheads? There are way more people there.

- darren

 

[darren]

the fee receipts do little more than pay for fee collection and enforcement.

Excellent point. It is the Mass Pike tollbooths of the north woods.

- darren

 

[Hillwalker]

Bellyache

Every time I hear people carp about parking fees I get a headache from their bellyaching. As a volunteer trail maintainer I spend over a thousand dollars a year out of my retirement income travelling to and from my work sites and paying for the minor items involved in my "volunteer" work. Granted I am allowed to claim twelve cents a mile for volunteer travel, but with fuel costs where they are, that doesn't come close. Of course I have had my GAP for more than five years now so since I no longer have to pay parking fees so it's a wash.....not. So cut the bellaching and chip in where it really makes a difference.

 

[SkierSteve]

Living in Ri, taxes and fees are unfortunately a major portion of everyday life. I have to admit that one of the reasons I spend so much time in NH is my attitude changes just by being in a State that takes such a different attitude to taking it's citizens money. I've always paid the parking fees with a smile, I know its the federal government, but the value I gain in mental health is worth every cent.

 

[MichaelJ]

So is there a huge problem at the Franc loop trailheads? There are way more people there.

I would contend there are more people at Lincoln Woods in the winter than at Falling Waters / OBP. In fact, I might even say that about summer, too, but with Lafayette Campground (and its flush toilets) right there it's hard to say.

In the summer I wonder how the cost of pumping compares to the cost of the stoves at Lincoln Woods, maintenance of the well, and the amortized cost of construction?

 

[rocket21]

Frankly, I love the bathrooms at Lincoln Woods. And I think much of the casual hiking public does as well. It wouldn't be my first choice for spending money, but it's really nice for changing before the ride home.

-dave-

I think I'd be more content if they charged at areas mentioned with such facilities, but didn't charge at those that are undeveloped...while I can understand the need to collect revenue, I think taxpayers should have opportunities to use their land for free as well. Obviously there are ways now, but, for instance, paying $3 to hike Welch-Dickey seemed kind of rediculous.

 

[DougPaul]

while I can understand the need to collect revenue, I think taxpayers should have opportunities to use their land for free as well...

Its a parking fee--just find a way to get to the woods which does not require you to park in a fee area.

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

New Fed Pass System

Below are some excerpts from a Dec. 4, 2006 press release issued by the US Department of Interior, outlining a new federal lands recreation pass/permit system.

Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett and Under Secretary of Agriculture Mark Rey today announced a new interagency recreation pass that will benefit visitors to national public lands. The new pass, authorized by the Congress in 2004, combines the benefits of existing recreation passes from five federal agencies into one comprehensive pass, the “America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass.”

The new pass covers recreation opportunities on public lands managed by four Department of the Interior agencies – the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and by the Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service.

…

The new program replaces the Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and the Golden Access Passports as well as the National Parks Pass. Existing passes will remain valid until expired, lost or stolen.

Sales of the new pass will begin in January 2007 and will be available at federal recreation sites that charge entrance and standard amenity fees, through government internet sites, and through select third-party vendors.

…

The new pass program was created by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which Congress authorized in December 2004.

…

Now, here’s the part everybody should be very interested in. How much will this cost me?

From the 12/4/06 release:

…

The four different passes in the new interagency program are:

1) a new annual interagency pass costing $80 -- For visitors to multiple federal sites, the pass offers unlimited coverage of entrance and standard amenity recreation fees for a specific period of time, typically a year, beginning from the month of purchase.

2) a $10 lifetime senior pass for U.S. citizens 62 or over;

3) a free lifetime access pass for citizens with permanent disabilities ; and

4) a new, free annual volunteer pass for volunteers acquiring 500 hours of service on a cumulative basis.

The new interagency pass is good at vehicle-based entry sites for all occupants in a single, non-commercial vehicle. At walk-up sites, the pass is good for the pass holder and three adults (total of four adults). There is no charge for children under 16. …

…

At least we now have available one pass that covers multiple sites / jurisdictions. The $80 annual fee is steep, but if you do much galavanting around, it may not seem that bad compared to past years. It is an improvement over systems involving a permit for each separate entity or unit.

And look at the benefit to active volunteers! Bless those volunteers’ good hearts for the work they do to make our recreation more pleasant. They now won’t have to wait for passage to Heaven before receiving some of their just rewards.

As an active taxpayer, I’ll still “bellyache” about the add-on Wreckreation fees charged to use federally held public land. And appreciate all the more the no-charge access from state developed trailheads and parking available to those of us who also enjoy hiking in the Adirondacks.

Just call me …

G(rumpy).