Cantwell on Fee Demo

[glen]

A few days ago, I wrote to Cantwell and voiced my opinion on the Fee Demo program. You all know the gripes already, no reason to repeat them here. Included is her response. I'm not sure if it says anything at all really. But, it is nice to know what those represeting WA are actually willling to go down on paper as having said (or not go down on paper saying, as the case may be) on this topic.

 

Dear Mr. Wallace:

 

Thank you for contacting me about fees charged for recreational use of

federal lands that are not included in the National Park System. I

appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me. I believe

that the Recreation Fee Demonstration program, which allows the Forest

Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies to charge fees

for use of public lands, has benefits for both recreational users and

local land managers, but I also believe the program needs additional

study.

 

The Recreation Fee Demonstration Project (Fee Demo) was originally

authorized without floor debate as a 3-year test program. The program was

set to expire in late 2002, but was extended until 2004 as part of the

Interior appropriations bill.

 

The major benefit of the Fee Demo program is that it permits local sites

to retain and use 80 percent of the funds raised for site-specific

improvements and maintenance. Since 1996, the program has generated

nearly $1 billion. In Washington state, fees have been used to pay for

interpretive services at Mount St. Helens to improve disabled access to

viewing platforms, restrooms, and picnic facilities at multiple sites, and

for maintenance or reconstruction of 1500 miles of trails.

 

I am concerned, however, by studies showing that the fees result in

reduced access to public lands, and I am also interested in learning if

the program has led to reduced federal appropriations for maintenance. I

am also worried that over time the program would cause local land managers

to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of

the higher amounts of fee revenue raised. Finally, and most critically,

if the program is to continue, coordination of the fee system between

lands owned by different agencies must be improved.

 

The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on the progress of

the Fee Demo program in November 2001. In the report, GAO makes several

suggestions towards improving the management of the program. I will

continue follow this issue closely in order to determine whether the Fee

Demo program demonstrates that the collection of usage fees will serve as

a positive measure to improve the recreational opportunities on our public

lands. Again, thank you for writing, and please do not hesitate to

contact me again on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

 

Maria Cantwell

United States Senator

[Greg_W]

Glen-

It is good to see that you got a response, or non-response as it were. She says absolutely nothing. I don't know what your initial correspondence was (I presume against it), but all she does is give a brief history of the Program; information you could get from this website. Just curious, did you e-mail or snail-mail her?

 

Greg

[MysticNacho]

Disabled access? 1500 miles of trail? Seems like constructive uses to me, I'm willing to shell out the green for that. Reduced usage? Mixed feelings on that one. On one hand, the less people out there, the better, but on the other, I think the world would be a better place if everyone got outside once in awhile. I'd definitely need to learn more about this before formulating my opinion though. What is y'all's beef with this one, you just don't like paying?

 

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

 

The moment you stop questioning is the moment you stop understanding.

 

[ 05-06-2002, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: MysticNacho ]

[Lambone]

In other words, she doesn't know anything about it...

 

I wonder if thats the standard BS letter that she sends back to everyone, and who wrote it for her?

[mattp]

I agree that the letter is probably standard BS letter that she sends back to everyone," but at least whoever wrote it seems to pretty much know what the issues are.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MysticNacho:

Disabled access? 1500 miles of trail? Seems like constructive uses to me, I'm willing to shell out the green for that. Reduced usage? Mixed feelings on that one. On one hand, the less people out there, the better, but on the other, I think the world would be a better place if everyone got outside once in awhile. I'd definitely need to learn more about this before formulating my opinion though. What is y'all's beef with this one, you just don't like paying?

---

SpiritualTaco: A couple of points for you: 1,500 miles of trail where? In Washington? I find that hard to believe. You say you are willing to "...shell out green for..." certain things. News Flash: you already do with your taxes. Regarding "reduced usage", raising fees causing reduced usage on lands that are supposed to be for EVERYONE is not right. Personally, I don't like paying because I see how much of my paycheck gets stolen by the Federal Government every month as it is and wonder where it all goes.

 

Greg

[chucK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MysticNacho:

What is y'all's beef with this one [...]?

---

Here's my main beef:

 

Did you notice she says the sites get to retain 80% of the fees collected?

 

How about stating it in another way? When one pays the fee demo, 20% of your fee goes to the Federal coffers, to supplement the rest of the money you already pay them.

 

Or to put it another way, when you pay your "usage fee" you are assessed a 25% federal tax.

 

Tax on a tax. That stinks

[mattp]

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying to play. If it were easy to pay for parking, and if it were cheap enough, I wouldn't mind. But to me that is not the point -- what I fear is that they really are trying to commercialize the whole thing and this is only one of many steps down that slippery slope. When a Thousand Trails employee rousts me out of the sleeping bag in the morning, asking for the campground fee, I wonder who the hell is this guy? He doesn't belong there. And when two nights in the wildneress cost $70.00, when trail parking and wilderness permits are added up, that is just WAY too much. I don't generally believe in conspiracy theories, but it is starting to look pretty bad for "public lands."

[freeclimb9]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying to play.

---

But it's public land for which you already pay taxes.

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by freeclimb9:

But it's public land for which you already pay taxes.

---

True enough, but we pay taxes to support lots of services for which we also pay fees -- consider urban transit systems, postal service, state colleges, etc. To me, this is not the best argument.

 

I believe that public lands should be public, and ideally this would mean they'd be free, but if there were one or two fees, easily paid, and cheap, I probably wouldn't bother to raise much objection. The problem is, every time we turn around there are more fees, they are not easily paid, they add up to a lot of money, and I am afraid that the whole thing is on a one-way ratchet. The Forest Service has been bad enough, but I don't want to see "Thousand Trails" running the Wenatchee National Forest.

[Son_of_Caveman]

It sounds an awful lot like gun legislation. "Oh we want just a little 'juke' here, and a little 'juke' there."

 

When it's over, we'll have no rights at all. $5.00 here, $25.00 there, a sticker here, a $50.00 permit there.

 

Give a little...lose a lot.

 

Watch your ass boys, Uncle wants it.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

True enough, but we pay taxes to support lots of services for which we also pay fees -- consider urban transit systems, postal service, state colleges, etc. To me, this is not the best argument.

 

I believe that public lands should be public, and ideally this would mean they'd be free, but if there were one or two fees, easily paid, and cheap, I probably wouldn't bother to raise much objection. The problem is, every time we turn around there are more fees, they are not easily paid, they add up to a lot of money, and I am afraid that the whole thing is on a one-way ratchet. The Forest Service has been bad enough, but I don't want to see "Thousand Trails" running the Wenatchee National Forest.

---

Our taxes do SUBSIDIZE (i.e., pay them to operate at a loss) urban transit, postal service, etc. but there are private alternatives in these instances. Your post seems to say that you are surprised by the "...one-way ratchet" of Federal fees. Hasn't it been proven that Government will only increase in size and scope if left unchecked? Of course these fees will continue to increase; if I am not mistaken, they already have over the life of the Fee Demo Program. Didn't they go up $5 in 2000 or 2001? I may be mistaken. Regardless, the cost of going out onto public lands is only going to increase unless we voice our disapproval (like we used to say on election day in Chicago) EARLY AND OFTEN!!

 

See you at the EASTSIDE PUB CLUB tomorrow

 

Greg

[glen]

Unfortunately, I didn't keep a copy of the letter I sent her via the online letter submission she has on her webpage. I'm not sure the response would have been all that different wiht snail mail, other than using more paper.

 

It basically stated that I recognize that a budget is required in order to maintain facilities and trail maintenance, but that I didn't believe Fee Demo is the way to go. I then gave an itemized list of reasons why I thought this. I followed with a brief comment on the difference between compliance (ie, buying a pass not to get a ticket) and support of the program- after all, they are entirely different things in this case.

 

I have no problem having my $ go to pay for trails and such. I use them and recognize that it takes work to maintain the resource. I do have a problem with the way that the USDA is administering its budget and the way in which it is 'generating revenue' from the Fee Demo instead of balancing it's budget internally. I am not willing to spend 20 years of my life working for the govm't to become a high ranker in USDA to change the way in which policy is implemented, so I called their boss. The boss (Cantwell) seems to have responded in a somewhat mroe polished, but overall quite similar way to the manner in which Larry the Tool's boss responded to mattp- "tell them what they told you, empathize, support... do nothing."

 

I have failed to see many improvements as a result of Fee Demo. They generally choose to increase high impact infrastructure which requires additional staff and expense over the years instead of reducing fees and maintaining impact levels through effective trail management, etc. If this trend is an indicator, it could be the tip of a pleasantly vicious cycle.

 

Write more letters. Democracy only works when people take responsibility for it. It would be fun to start a collection of identical form letters, at the very least.

 

G

[freeclimb9]

Mattp,

I actually live in a town where the public transit is free, and it's no problem to sit in on lectures at the college. That aside, I don't pay user fees to look at books at the public library, and it chaffs me badly to have to pay fees to look at public lands. No service is being rendered when I visit a National Park, so why pay to visit. Other monuments in our country are free to visitors (eg. Lincoln Memorial, etc.).

Once a toll is introduced, it's tough to stop. The Golden Gate bridge has collected fees enough to pay for its construction at least seven times over. WTF? The Fee-Demo program was to last three years as an experiment. That time has passed and so should the "pay to play" program.

[klenke]

Too bad there isn't a way to do an on-line petition with electronic signatures. Or maybe there is.

 

We could petition this lousy double-taxation Fee Demo Program out of existence. Or maybe not.

 

The government is addicted to money--ours. Sad to say, but quite often I get the feeling that the day the fee program started it was already too late.

[klenke]

I can just see it...

Many years from now, whenever we look out at Mt. Rainier from our modest abodes in Seattle we'll have to pay a small "viewing tax". Windows in residences will be a thing of the past, as no one will be able to afford the view.

 

[ 05-06-2002, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: klenke ]

[Pepper_Boy]

Ahhh the beauty of democracy: the minorities get screwed. And we - fit, healthy ( , etc. notwithstanding), adventure-lovers - are a minority. Greg, Greg, Greg - he wonders where that huge kah-ching goes - guns to war against threats both imagined and real, medical care for an aging and increasingly slackass population, and a whooooole lotta pork. Pay to play is fine, but you have to implement it across the board (where personal versus public consumption is discernible) or a subset of the population (us) ends up yanking double-time to cover their bourgeoning obligation. And right now, lots of other subpopulations skate on the backs of the general public while we (among other examples) get singled out. Sorry, no constructive suggestions, I know the man can bitchslap my ass at will (and historically speaking, the product of revolution is generally less palatable than the instigation anyway). Guzzle 'em while they're cold.

[glen]

Here's a question for those out there with bit more legal savvy than I. When I reread the letter, I noticed that the Demo Program was started as a pilot program to last 3 years without floor debate. Ok, fine. Then it was extended as part of the House Appropriations Bill. The question is this: Is there any way to spin that up as 'taxation without representation' - or does that go out the window when it was inlcuded as a part of a bill? It seems like what might be good is to push for some senator to actually get this thing to see the light of day on the floor. Thus far it seems to have been a bit of a mushroom (eg, kept in the dark and fed a lot of shit). It seems like it is difficult to change it or have input when it is never actively engaged in the political process. Unless it sees the light of day, I doubt our letters will be of much use. It seems unlikely that the USDA is going to go to congress and request that the Fee Demo be removed.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pepper Boy:

Ahhh the beauty of democracy: the minorities get screwed. And we - fit, healthy (

, etc. notwithstanding), adventure-lovers - are a minority. Greg, Greg, Greg - he wonders where that huge kah-ching goes - guns to war against threats both imagined and real, medical care for an aging and increasingly slackass population, and a whooooole lotta pork. Pay to play is fine, but you have to implement it across the board (where personal versus public consumption is discernible) or a subset of the population (us) ends up yanking double-time to cover their bourgeoning obligation. And right now, lots of other subpopulations skate on the backs of the general public while we (among other examples) get singled out. Sorry, no constructive suggestions, I know the man can bitchslap my ass at will (and historically speaking, the product of revolution is generally less palatable than the instigation anyway). Guzzle 'em while they're cold.

---

I know where it goes, you're preaching to the choir dude.

 

Greg

[Rodchester]

I agree with freeclimb9

 

"But it's public land for which you already pay taxes."

 

Congress just doesn't have the balls to come up with the money through traditional means, Cantwell is a part of congress.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Shit is fucked. Money goes out there to foreign aid in billions all the time but we cant even take care of our own shit here.

 

Fuck fee demo.

 

All those demo lovers kiss this and while you are down there eat those dingleberries

[Pepper_Boy]

Happens all the time, particularly with programs that fund themselves. There's at least 20 times more language floating around each congressional session the the general assembly can possibly consider. We land users are no where close to a decent lobby, not like the elderly (lots of voters) or Microsoft (lots of green voters). I don't see how we'd get into a position to make their lack of consideration come back to haunt them. They screw you at the drive thru . . .

[Pepper_Boy]

"Personally, I don't like paying because I see how much of my paycheck gets stolen by the Federal Government every month as it is and wonder where it all goes."

 

Poetic license. Kinda figured it was rhetorical, but it made for a nice segue. Hallelujah, choirboy. Yours truly, preacher bob.

[klenke]

My thoughts exactly, Captain of the Cavemen.

 

All those bail out dollars that went to Russia, I wonder if they went into trail improvements in The Urals?

[Cpt.Caveman]

More like trail improvements to the urinals in Russia