anti-FeeDemo victory, June 15 is Action Day

[freeclimb9]

Chalk one up for the fiesty NorthEasterners. Time is ripe to re-focus energies on our own western legistlators to drop the Fee-Demo riders. In the words of the Bush, "enough is enough", "let's roll".

 

(The following was cut from Rock&Ice News).

May 2, 2002

“Citizens of New Hampshire already pay federal income taxes that should adequately fund the operation and maintenance of national forests,” says New Hampshire House Concurrent Resolution 23 (HCR 23), which passed unanimously in the New Hampshire Senate on April 11. “The fee constitutes a regressive tax that bears no relation to the actual costs of recreation... [and] the parking fees deny limited-income citizens access to public lands.” The passing HCR 23 urges the United States Congress to, “abolish the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program and permit citizens of New Hampshire to enjoy the national forests without payment of a fee.”

 

While carrying no legal or legislative power, the Resolution does make it abundantly clear that New Hampshire citizens are up in arms over the Fee-Demo program. “This Resolution is part of an immense groundswell of public protest about user-fees for simple action to public land, which is a serious abridgement of one of the most fundamental rights we as citizens possess -- that the citizens are the owners of the public lands,” says John Joline, co-founder of New England Public Forest Advocates (NEPFA), a New Hampshire-based group formed to protest and educate the public about Fee-Demo. “The New Hampshire resolution reflects deep concern about the implications of where the fee demo program is designed to take public land policy and who is going to benefit by the push toward privatization of access to, and commercialization of, public lands.”

 

Created as a rider on the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996, Fee-Demo, or “pay-to-play,” was intended to help government agencies raise money for operational costs, including trail maintenance and waste disposal, with 80 percent of the collected fees going directly to the collecting agency and 20 percent going to the regional agency office. The program was intended to end after three years, but by attaching Fee-Demo as a rider to the Interior Appropriations Bill each year since 1996, its supporters have made it impossible to kill without depriving the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service of all money. As a result of Fee-Demo, entrance fees in 1997 brought in $85.1 million -- almost double the entrance fees of pre-Fee-Demo 1996, which brought in $48.5 million. In addition, 1997’s user fees accounted for $37 million dollars and 1996 brought in $29 million.

 

President Bush is also a player in the world of Fee-Demo, and made Fee-Demo a priority in his 2003 budget proposal. He said, “Proposed legislation would make permanent the current demonstration program and would authorize the Forest Service to retain and use recreation fees collected under the program.”

 

In an article in the San Francisco Chronicle last March, Teri Cleeland, fee program manager for the Forest Service’s headquarters in Washington D.C., wanted at least a permanent decision on the issue. “Some areas it has worked; some it has not,” Cleeland told the Chronicle. “That has been the nature of the test, but the test has gone all too long.”

 

Anti-Fee-Demo advocates Wild Wilderness are promoting a National Day of Action on June 15. Wild Wilderness’s website (wildwilderness.org) urges the American public to “actively participate in the process of shaping the future for recreation on our nation's public lands.”

 

-- Alex McAfee

[Dan_Harris]

freeclimb9, you beat me to the punch. Just finished reading the article a few minutes ago. From another site it was mentioned that California, Colorado, & Oregon have also passed resolutions that oppose fee demo. Is this true Oregonians? Washingtonians write and call your reps, state and federal.

[freeclimb9]

Who's your Rep? Check out http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Senator? http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm

 

I've written my Representative and Senators.

My letter:

Mr. ??????,

I'm a resident of our great State of Utah, and am anxious to have the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program end. This program was created as a rider on the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996 as an experiment to last three (3) years. Since '96 it has been attached as a rider to the Interior Appropriations Bill each year. This experiment has gone on far too long.

Please stop additional Fees to access National lands altogether.

We citizens already pay federal income taxes that should adequately fund the operation and maintenance of national forests. The fee constitutes a regressive tax that bears no relation to the actual costs of recreation. Additionally, the parking fees deny limited-income citizens access to public lands. Let us enjoy the national forests without payment of additional fees.

best regards,

[Off_White]

The Oregon resolution is fact. Before you go sending money to Wild Wilderness though, be aware that they are the primary proponent of banning all fixed anchors in any wilderness area.

http://www.wildwilderness.org/wi/bolting.htm Of course, I'm sure opinions on this issue vary on this site, but I don't consider WW my friend. Its not only bolts, but nuts, pins and slings they're out to ban. Apparently, trails, signs, and maps are okay, but they do also want to ban GPS units.

Fee demo sucks though, and I'd love to see that nasty scam go down.

[fleblebleb]

Heh, dive into the rathole. Whee!

 

I dig the fixed anchors ban, at least the spirit of it.

 

If it were enforced to the point where we couldn't leave clean gear (slings, nuts, rap rings; no bolts or pitons) as rap anchors it would positively suck. But no worries, it is quite impossible to enforce it to such an extent. Besides, such anchors need rebuilding at least once a season, so who really cares? Leave one behind and either nobody ever sees it again or it is cut and brought back once it needs replacement.

 

The key is that there is no lasting impact. This is the spirit of the fixed anchors ban - if I understand it correctly.

 

Furthermore, it's hard to argue that leaving a clean anchor constitutes littering because the anchor serves a useful purpose. I don't know anyone that would replace a failing anchor and chuck the old slings off the cliff.

 

In contrast, bolts and pitons scar the rock. I love clipping bolts myself, but only at sport climbing crags like Frenchman Coulee and Little Si. What's the difference between a sport climbing crag and a wilderness area? Let reasonable people decide - as long as *both* categories are populated I'll be happy.

 

I would consider donating to Wild Wilderness myself, if I weren't continually broke Probably in equal measures with the Access Fund. Then I'd cross my fingers and hope I'd have played a part in getting some reasonable people on both sides of the table...

[fleblebleb]

Some day I'm going to learn to first read, then post. Does somebody have a clear idea about the legal text of the fixed anchor ban? Mattp? Anyone?

 

http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/200010/200010disp9.html

 

According to the Outside Mag. article clean gear anchors aren't considered permanent, therefore cannot be considered to be "installations" and therefore aren't an issue. Is this correct? Has anything changed?

 

Does the fixed anchor ban mean that existing anchors would be removed? That would seem kind of stupid... the installation of an ugly hole/chopped bolt/whatever...

 

Does it mean that existing bolts at crags and walls must not be replaced? That would suck...

[Rodchester]

Leaving anything behind is an anchor...clean gear or bolt. As soon as you leave it, it is an anchor and is banned.

 

No rapping off of webbing and a rap ring, that is banned (proposed anyway).

 

[ 05-05-2002, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Rodchester ]

[willstrickland]

Here's the reality of a fixed anchors ban:

 

Who the hell is going to enforce it? By nature, the anchor is fixed to allow retreat/descent. Now for a Freddie to access the anchor they'll have to climb to it, and then how are THEY going to get down? Even if they pull it, next party leaves another sling/nut/pin...endlessly. I figure even the Freddie climbers who would be enforcing it are astute enough to not actually pull the necessary anchors, fixed or no. Surely they can see the laughability of a f*&$% set of steel cables allowing the gapers to summit Half Dome vs. a sling that no one except those using it would ever see...and I agree, Wild Wilderness is no "friend" or "spokesman" for me.

[freeclimb9]

no Fee-Demo, no Fee-Demo.

[mattp]

White and Will: I agree with you about Scott Silver and Wild Wildness. But if you don't like some of what Wild Wilderness stands for, you can still use their information and support their position on the fee demo program while clearly distancing yourself from the organization. When I recently spoke with some higher-ups in the Mount Baker National Forest about Fee Demo, one of them said "where are you getting your info -- Wild Wilderness?" I replied that yes, I got some of my information from there, but I said that I had a mind of my own and didn't believe everything I read, whether from Wild Wilderness or from the Forest Service, and I asked about a report from OMB. In the ensuing discussion, I was careful to make my own arguments, in my own words, so I wouldn't sound like I was simply parroting Scott Silver.

[mattp]

My mistake. When I wrote "OMB," I was referring to a GAO report, a "summary" of which was linked on this site last Spring some time. It is probably the same one as referred to in the letter posted on the Maria Cantwell thread. It seemed to me that among other things, the report suggested that the fees generated by the fee demo program do in fact replace other funds, and I believe it also sharply criticized USFS mispresentations about the program.

[klenke]

Does this day coincide with Tax Freedom Day? If so, then it'll have to increment beyond June 15 every so often in the future.

 

When Tax Freedom Day reaches Dec. 31, we'll all be communists and Karl Marx will from his grave.

[MysticNacho]

Where exactly is the money from the fee demo program going? It is my understanding that the country's forest service and wilderness management branches of the government are vastly underfunded. If they were using the money in a constructive way, I have no problem shelling out the clams for access. If they're using it to buy hookers and beer, however, I'm against it.

[willstrickland]

True Matt, we can and should use the info from WW and other sources. My point here is that it's better to get somewhat involved (to the point of writing your congresspeople as a minimum) instead of simply throwing money at organizations such as WW who purport to fight the good fight for you. They are not always what they seem, and in fact there are quite alot of right wing PAG/PAC type groups who masquerade with "green friendly" names. One of my fellow master's students put together a presentation on this type of deceptive marketing in the public land-use sector.

[deeds]

Thanks Freeclimb9 for bringing up this subject.

 

MattP: To what OMB report do you refer to?

 

I heard some guy has been out at the Snow Lakes Trailhead educating people about the need to kill the Fee Demo. Who is he? How can I help?

 

The Fee Demo should be eliminated. Climbers everywhere must rise up is righteous indignation. I'm gonna do my part by talking to people who park along Icicle Creek near Leavenworth. Gonna write to my representatives too.