[pct-l] Fw: Fees: Washington Post summary

[NeffJ@email.msn.com (JohnFayeNeff)]

This may be slightly off of the usual posts for the PCT, but almost all of
the trailheads require the fees.
Crest Rider
> Below, for your reference, is an excellent summary of the User Fee issue
> which appeared in the Washington Post - containing facts/history/points
> which could be used writing your own letters to the editor, etc. PLEASE
SAVE
> if you hope to write members of Congress or others in the near future and
> want a reminder of main points.
>
>
>
> It will be important to contact the conference committee on Interior
> Appropriations by mid-September, Patty Murray  being one of the key
> individuals.  I will follow up with more information this week.  Please
> consider writing your own letter to the editor during the next month to
> encourage others to write, particularly if you are one of Murray's
> constituents (Washington State.)  This will be the best opportunity we've
> had to date to call this program into question and finally bring it to
> public debate in Congress.  IS
>
>
>
>
>
> A Look At . . . The Nature of Nature
> The Land of the Fee
>
>
>
>        E-Mail This Article
>        Printer-Friendly Version
>        Subscribe to The Post
> By Jeff Milchen
> Sunday, June 24, 2001; Page B03
>
>
> BOULDER, Colo. -- Like many Americans, I didn't give much thought to the
> federal program called Fee Demo -- officially, the Recreation Fee
> Demonstration Project -- until I was told to pay.
>
> Vacationing in Oregon last year, I returned to hike a favorite trail in
the
> Three Sisters Wilderness, where I'd worked one summer as a ranger years
> before. There I found a sign demanding that I pay $5 to park or face a
fine
> of up to $100. Since the only way to reach this remote trailhead was by
car,
> I was essentially being charged to hike.
>
> The sum requested was modest, but the change in public land management
> policy that it represents is not. Until five years ago, such fees were
> expressly prohibited (with a few narrow exceptions) on most federally
> managed public lands, and strict limits were placed on commercial
activity.
> But the Fee Demo program established in 1996 has temporarily lifted those
> prohibitions. If it is made permanent under legislation pending in
Congress,
> the door will be opened to widespread and destructive commercialization of
> lands that are an important part of our national heritage.
>
> Don't confuse these places with developed national parks, to which
Americans
> have paid admission for nearly a century. Three Sisters Wilderness is not
a
> park, but part of the more extensive system of federally managed public
> lands -- 232 million acres managed by the U.S. Forest Service, 264 million
> acres by the Bureau of Land Management, 93 million by the Fish and
Wildlife
> Service and 12 million by the Army Corps of Engineers. Forest Service
lands
> alone are three times the size of the 75 million-acre national park
system.
>
> Traditionally, these public lands are supported by our income taxes, and
all
> Americans have a right to free access. That concept was reinforced by the
> Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, which generally prohibited
not
> only user fees but most commercial recreation activity.
>
> Amid the privatization movement of the 1990s, however, Congress
> significantly reduced funds for the upkeep of public lands -- for example,
> it cut the Forest Service recreation budget by more than a third between
> 1994 and 1999. Into this artificially created financial crisis stepped the
> American Recreation Coalition (ARC), a consortium of corporate interests
> that profit from motorized recreation, concessions, campgrounds, marinas
and
> similar facilities.
>
> Claiming that user fees could help eliminate the funding shortfalls, the
ARC
> lobbied intensively for lifting the prohibitions on commercial activity
and
> promoting "public/private partnerships." An initial push for Fee Demo was
> defeated in a House vote, but it was slipped into the 1996 appropriations
> bill in committee, and was passed with almost no public awareness or
> discussion. The measure authorized each of the four largest federal land
> management agencies to charge fees at up to 100 unspecified sites, up to
400
> in all.
>
> Originally a two-year test, the law was twice extended (both times via
> legislative riders with no debate), and now is authorized through
September
> 2002. The Senate will vote shortly on yet another extension, and Sen. Bob
> Graham (D-Fla.) introduced a bill this month to make the system permanent.
>
> This presents a new and serious threat. As long as Fee Demo was temporary,
> developers were unlikely to launch expensive building projects. If
> protections from corporate exploitation are permanently removed, not only
> will user fees be entrenched, but the recreation industry will seek to
build
> new marinas, concession stands and RV-style campgrounds.
>
> Inevitably, those who manage public lands will shift their priorities from
> protecting healthy ecosystems to ensuring their agencies' survival by
making
> money. In 1999, Francis Pandolfi, then the Forest Service's chief
operating
> officer, was already promoting "fully explor[ing] our gold mine of
> recreational opportunities in this country and manag[ing] it as if it were
> consumer product brands."
>
> In its "Recreation Partnerships Initiative," a close cousin to Fee Demo,
the
> Army Corps of Engineers says, "The intent . . . is to encourage private
> development of public recreation facilities such as: marinas,
> hotel/motel/restaurant complexes, conference centers, RV camping areas,
golf
> courses, theme parks. . . . "
>
> ARC president Derrick Crandall described in a 1998 interview what
typically
> happens when private businesses contract to manage public facilities: "If
> you have three 40-site campgrounds in a district, we may well see that
those
> are essentially closed and a new 120-site campground is built to today's
> standards." Now we're talking efficiency and profitability.
>
> The ARC promotes user fees as a supplement to federal funding, but the
facts
> show otherwise. Fee revenues merely have enabled further cuts in
> appropriated funds: The Deschutes National Forest in Oregon reaped
$175,400
> in user fees in 1998, then had its 1999 recreation budget cut by $175,800.
> It's a recurring pattern.
>
> Forest Service publicity claims that 80 percent of Fee Demo revenues go
> right back to the land, but that's not true. Private contractors are
getting
> a cut from many of the fees people pay at campgrounds and trail heads. For
> example, most of Southern California's "Enterprise Forest" Fee Demo passes
> are sold by private businesses, which get a 20-percent cut. An additional
19
> percent of money collected there is spent on other collection and
> enforcement. Overall, at least half the Enterprise Forest fees go to
> overhead, and barely half the public is paying.
>
> For most visitors, the fees are small, but they are demonstrably
exclusive.
> In a study of New England "pay to play" sites conducted by the Forest
> Service and the University of Massachusetts, 23 percent of respondents
with
> incomes under $30,000 said fees had reduced or eliminated their use ofthe
> areas.
>
> Fee Demo is only a first step, and more regressive, costly, and
> environmentally damaging measures likely will follow unless the program is
> halted. Fortunately, awareness of the threat is growing. In May, Oregon
> joined California and New Hampshire in passing a resolution opposing the
> program.
>
> The trailhead access fees arising around the country distract from the
> greater impact of Fee Demo -- abolishing the strict limits on
commercialism
> that have kept most public lands an oasis for the enjoyment of unspoiled
> nature and conservation of habitat for thousands of species.
>
> Preserving our public lands and exploiting them for private profit are
> fundamentally conflicting goals. Congress should put an end to Fee Demo
and
> restore the funding that was stripped from the general budget.
>
> If the program is allowed to continue past 2002, there will be scarce
chance
> of ever removing it. After years of paying this user tax, many Americans
> will have forgotten that public lands were intended to be accessible to
all
> Americans -- a birthright to protect, not a commodity available only to
> those who can afford it.
>
> Jeff Milchen is the founder of ReclaimDemocracy.org, a nonprofit
> organization that advocates for citizen authority over corporations. Scott
> Silver of Wild Wilderness, which advocates undeveloped recreation,
provided
> research assistance.
>
>
> © 2001 The Washington Post Company
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> SEARCH:
>
>
>
>
> Search Options
>
>
>
>
>
>
>