I feel obligated to pass this on... Look at it.

[rayborbon]

Five days ago, our friends at Free Our Forests (www.freeourforests.org)

created an Internet "Petition Against User Fees On Public Lands". As of this

morning, the petition had already gathered 190 signatures. This is

remarkable, given the short time and limited exposure the petition has had.

Now the trick is to multiply this number 100 fold or, hopefully, much more

than that!

In fact, an older printed petition (downloadable at www.wildwilderness.org/docs/petition.htm ) has already gathered more than

19,000 signatures. But, gathering signatures on paper is a slow, manually

intensive and time consuming process. It has taken over two years to

accumulate those 19,000+ signatures on paper.

Due to the urgency with which we must communicate to Congress the widespread

opposition to Fee-Demo, we enthusiastically support the use of the new

Internet petition which appears at http://www.petitiononline.com/feedemo/petition.html .

We encourage you to not only sign this petition, but to make the existence

of this petition widely known. Filling out the Internet petition takes but a

moment. For those who'd prefer to sign a paper petition, we encourage you to

download and use our older petition.

Thanks very much for your help and support.

Scott

PS... Please feel free to distribute this message far and wide.

----Petition Follows----

http://www.petitiononline.com/feedemo/petition.html

To: President George W. Bush

We, the undersigned, object to the proposed collection of additional user

fees (for parking, hiking, camping, riding, etc.; Public Law 104-134)

outside of developed campgrounds on our public lands (U.S. Forest Service,

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife)

for the following reasons:

· As U.S. citizens we have already paid taxes for professional management of

our public lands.

· Once fees are implemented, history shows they increase over time.

· While these fees may not seem excessive to some now, we have watched fees

at other sites, i.e.. National Parks, double in one year.

· We believe it is the right of all Americans to have free access to these

lands, not the right of only those who can afford to pay fees.

· We believe it is unlikely that the fee program will benefit public lands.

History shows fees returning to the general fund once fee program is

established. Despite claims that the money will return to the site where it

was collected, Congress historically cuts the agency's operating budget by

the same amount as the amount of fee money returning to the site.

· We oppose plans to charge users of backcountry and undeveloped areas to

pay for development of campgrounds and "front country" they are not, and may

have no intention, of using.

· We believe that Congress should re-evaluate its priorities and allocate

sufficient funds for the proper management of these cherished resources,

held dear to all Americans.

Sincerely,

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Scott Silver

Wild Wilderness

Bend, OR 97701

e-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org

Internet: http://www.wildwilderness.org

*********************************************

[This message has been edited by rayborbon (edited 02-13-2001).]

[rayborbon]

I hope this never happens.... It's like getting charged for exactly what you consume or use. How can we justify this... How can you really judge who is imposing the most impact without really knowing for sure.

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0312colossalcave-ON.html

 

[Alex]

While I support activism in general, I would like to hear the natural resource planner's and public land steward's takes on this was well.

All too often these seemingly black and white issues tend to be far more complicated and have very far reaching consequences. I-695 is a perfect example of this.

I used to work as a wildlife biologist for government, and every year I saw budgets shrink, people and natural resources LOOSE because not enough taxpayer money was spent on the environment. If you think you pay enough now friends, you are wrong. The sad truth is that unless something is PROFITABLE, people do not want to PAY FOR IT. Environmental stewardship is not profitable. With this in mind, I will HAPPILY forgoe a few lattes or the cost of a CD to help trail crews and natural resource management efforts.

All I ask is that you be aware that there are many sides to activism. Get educated if you care at all, then make a choice.

Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Eddie]

I don't support activism in general..... I look at the issue then decide. I do not support the demo fees. I can already see examples of the forest service ignoring an area the has no fee. The Forest service had no problem funding road building when some more trees needed to be cut.

[Rodchester]

The question isn't SHOULD we fund these things, but HOW should we fund these things. Access fees to “public” land are the wrong answer. It could get to a point that only those with money can get access. Then the public would loose access. The forest service is not the US Postal service.

Our society is based on a capitalist economic system, but our government is not. Our government is our representative assigned the duty of stewardship over our nation’s resources and lands. It has a duty to maintain these resources. We must not turn our nation’s resources and lands into a capitalist system.

If we turn our nation’s resources and land into a capitalist system we will face far worse problems than we face today. Soon some areas may be seen as a profit center and those that are not seen as profit centers face the possibility of guts due to lack of profitability. Fees at Yellowstone and Yosemite would sky rocket while, while the North Cascades would be seen as a capital drain. Not enough users to justify the expense. (Dirt bag climbers just don’t spend money). Like any corporate /capitalist system we would sell it off, maybe as a whole unit, maybe in pieces.

Too many gutless politicians are afraid to do their jobs, like fund our parks, forests, and public lands. So they pass it to the end user, people like you and me. The more we pay, the more they say, pass it to the end user. Too many people like you and me just pay it and don’t point to the politician and say, do your goddamn job.

I am as capitalist as you can get, short of our lands and resources. These Fees seem to make sense, but they don’t. Fund it, don’t charge for it.

It should also be noted that the majority of the "fees" do not, that is right do NOT, go toward what they tell you the fee is for. The vast majority of the time they go into the general fund and can be redirected as some politician and or bureaucrats sees fit. It does NOT all go toward trail maintenance, rescues, etc.

My twenty-five cents worth....

------------------

Have a nice day.

[512dude]

Instead of cutting income taxes for the upper and middle class so that they can buy another Ford Excursion, let that money be redirected to such projects as this. With out a sustained environment how are we going to ensure that there are enough trees to clean the air from the gas guzzling city slicker's SUVs?

[rayborbon]

http://www.perc.org/brfparks.htm

Interesting to say the least:

"Visitation is at near record levels, yet the park service reported a $500 million maintenance backlog last year. Something is surely amiss with the financial management of our parks."

[This message has been edited by rayborbon (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Thomas]

Most people oppose timber harvesting in the National Forests, and yet the users of the forests don't want to pay for the resource to be preserved in its natural state. Will the taxpayers (that don't directly use the forests) want to pay for its preservation? Unlikely. Without funding, the quality of the management of National Forests will be greatly diminished. And don't think that the forests don't need management. If you value the forests as they are, management is required to ensure that they continue to produce these values, whether it be scenic quality or clean water.

Why are the users of the forest not willing pay to use the Forest Resource? Is it just because it has been traditionally 'free'? Effective Forest Management requires resources and funding. The money has to come from somewhere.

[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Rodchester]

Can i just say, Oh I don't use the FBI so I don't want to pay for it? NO. The politicians and our taxes are supposed to pay for it.

------------------

Have a nice day.

[rayborbon]

. Many park superintendents still feel that a new, larger visitor center would solve many of their resource problems. Park development, it seems, is still seen as a principal means of managing and preserving park resources, and managers who implement large construction projects are often considered successful park superintendents.

http://165.83.219.72/hafe/discovery/sess-detail.cfm?Session_code=L-08

Oh yeah:

A state park director was recently heard to observe that visitors "feel more comfortable" in parks that charge entrance fees -- the implication being that fees keep people who are "different" away.

http://165.83.219.72/hafe/discovery/sess-detail.cfm?Session_code=L-31r

********************************************

Good ole REI the place where the masses get thier gear. Do the customers know this?

********************************************

"We are very pleased that the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, which is the direct result of our efforts, will produce more than $150 million this year in new receipts for the four agencies covered, including an estimated $20 million for the Forest Service."

From letter to Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture dated 9/2/98

signed by:

Wally Smith, Chairman of REI,

Kym Murphy, Vice President, Walt Disney Company,

plus 14 other corporate executives from the Recreation Roundtable.

[This message has been edited by rayborbon (edited 03-15-2001).]

[jon]

The revenue from user fees is sooo insignificant to the amount of money that is required to manage forest service land. How on earth is this supposed to makeup for Congress’s brilliant budgetary cuts? It’s not, and that’s the point. This is the strategy of corporate America (a la ARC) to gain access to public lands for their own profit by sponsoring the fee demonstration program.

People need to educate themselves on what is going on here and write letters to your Congressmen. I’ve been working on letters myself. Maybe with the help of Ray, I’ll add a section to the Access part of the site dedicated to fee demo information and news. We have to convince Congress there is a better way to manage our public lands, one that works and makes sense for the public rather than some CEO out to get rich.

 

[rayborbon]

You bet Jon just drop me a line.

[gregm]

I think it would be useful to get this onto the larger media (i.e. seattle pi, etc.). The story might be interesting to the non-outdoorsy public as an example of government waste, misrepresentation of facts by a federal agency, and the lobbying power of corperate funded special interest groups like the ARC. That kind of story would do more to get a legislator's attention.

I'd sort of like to work on this project but I feel like I need to dig into the figures myself. I think the stuff Scott Silver does is great but may be seen as overly biased if not slightly fringe by the general public. My point is that climbers and conservationsts are all mad as hell about this but we're basically a small group.

[jon]

Greg- I totally agree with you. I think it is important for everyone to find out the facts for themselves and not rely on one source of information. One thing I disagree on though is that we are a small group. I think the more people become aware it will turn out to be a very large group, especially here in the PacNW. Here is a recent link to a PI article http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/connelly/joel09.shtml

There are also some Times articles about the Forest Pass, most involving a black minister from Seattle who protests at the Alpental parking almost everyweekend during the summer, I forgot his name though.

[rbw1966]

Allow me to toss in my $.02.

First of all, its been reported in the press (and sorry I don't have a specific cite but I believe it was a local paper in Oregon) that email distributed petitions are largely ignored by our elected officials due to the ease with which names can be falsely added to it, etc. The legislative aide who was being interviewed on the subject reported seeing George W.'s name on a fee demo opposition petition--and obvious lie.

I don't see how a "paper" petition is any better but what do I know?

I personally oppose the fee demo program and will continue to oppose any fees charged for visiting our national/state parks and public lands until the day arrives when we no longer subsidize resource extraction, e.g. logging, mining and grazing. Giving the Forest Service money to visit our public lands as they continue to lose money to these interests is flat out wrong. These lands are no longer "public" when poor people cannot afford to visit them.

Rob

[jon]

Here is another interesting story I have found at CNET. It's not about access issues, but talks about how Congress is so inundated with email that they ignore most of them. I bet if I sent them a few with the Kournakova virus I’d get their attention.

Probably should put the link, surry I'm not too smart. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5173083.html?tag=st.cn.1.lthd

[This message has been edited by jon (edited 03-19-2001).]

[rayborbon]

Hmmm this may not be true but is reported to congress.

********************************************* http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/fee_demo/fee_intro.shtml#t3

*********************************************Public reaction has been positive when they see benefits and when fees are easy to pay.

The Forest Service chose an aggressive approach to the fee program - encouraging projects of varying sizes and fee types, differential pricing, and charging first time fees for many activities, facilities, and services. Projects range in size from a four-forest project in Southern California to a parking fee at a single trailhead to Northern Michigan's Sylvania Wilderness. We are testing fees per person and per carload; fees for heritage expeditions, visitor centers, camping, boating, hiking, day-use, wilderness permits; and multi-agency fees.

The test locations do not yet, in aggregate, represent a nationwide fee program, although we are working towards that goal. They are individual test projects that give insights useful in developing a more integrated fee system in the long run.

*********************************************

If you think you agree with me check out this:

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/fee_demo/commentform.html

*********************************************

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/[/url]

Glad to hear that forest fees are going to lazy a&^%& people that wanna sit and do this:

Mount St. Helens:

Replaced projection system for movie, at the Johnston Ridge Observatory.

[This message has been edited by rayborbon (edited 03-22-2001).]