User Fees Increase

[jon]

Perhaps no public lands in all of the United Stated have so deeply embracedthe free-market concept of recreation user fees (and pay-to-play recreation)than have those managed by the Texas State Park system. And no one person ismore responsible for the implementation of these fees in Texas, thanfree-marketeer Terry L. Anderson -- executive director of the PoliticalEconomy Research Center and currently policy consultant to former TexasGovernor, George W. Bush.(MUST READ!!! --- http://www.perc.org/conservation.pdf)

So.... whereas the comparatively progressive State of California recentlyreduced its park entrance fees by 50% in what has proved to be a successfuleffort to encourage visitation, Texas seems committed to pursuing major rateINCREASES.

Unfortunately, it will be the policies in Texas and not California thatPresident Bush will be using as his model for the management of federallands everywhere.

Let the following Action Alert from the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Clubserve as a warning to ALL fee-demo opponents in every corner of America.What's coming to Texas State Parks today, will be coming to National Forestsand National Parks tomorrow ---

--- UNLESS, of course, people become actively engaged in stopping this fromhappening!

Scott

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian Sybert To: LONESTAR-ACTION@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORGSent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:54 PMSubject: Action Alert # 1

Texas Parks & Wildlife Proposes State Park Entrance & User Fees Increases

Texas Parks & Wildlife is proposing to increase state park entrance and userfees because of inflation, increased operating costs, and the fact thatlegislature neglected to adequately fund state park operations once again.According to Parks & Wildlife the fee increase is necessary for the agencyto maintain the current level of service at state parks.

The proposal would increase the upper levels of the fee ranges for statepark entrance, facility use, and activity fees. Individual state park feesare adjusted by the Parks & Wildlife Commission and staff annually and mustbe kept within the approved fee ranges. Local market place factors such asoperational cost recovery, seasonality, and user demographics, and demandsare used to determine individual state park fees.

The current range for per person entry fees is between $.50 and $5.00. Theproposal would allow the commission to raise the ceiling on entrance,facility and activities fee within each of the 123 state parks. Following isa sample list of fee types and the proposed ranges for those fees (currentfee ceilings in parentheses):

· Per person entry (24 hours): $.50 - $10 ($5)· Campsite, primitive: $4 - $20 ($12)· Campsite w/electricity: $9 - $29 ($23)· Campsite, sewer hook-up: $10 - $35 ($25)· Screened shelter: $15 - $60 ($30)· Matagorda Island ferry/adult: $10 - $25 ($15)

While it is true that state parks are seriously under-funded and thatadditional money is need to maintain the current level of service the,Sierra Club has concerns about the size of the of the fee range increases.Parks & Wildlife must insure that the proposed fee range increases do notprice middle and lower income families out of the state parks.

Park & Wildlife is currently accepting comments on the proposed state parkfee increases. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 PM on January 14.Comments can be sent by e-mail to mike.crevier@tpwd.state.tx.us or by phoneat (800) 792-1112, follow the menus. Comments can also be sent by regularmail:

State Park FeesTexas Parks and Wildlife4200 Smith School RoadAustin, TX 78744

You can view the proposed rules for park fees at:http://204.65.105.13/texreg/archive/December142001/PROPOSED/31.NATURAL%20RESOURCES%20AND%20CONSERVATION.html#149

Points to Include in Your Comments

1. Parks & Wildlife must be careful not to increase fees to the point thatthey discourage use of state parks and related facilities.

2. Parks & Wildlife must be mindful of the impact that higher park feescould have on the state's middle and lower income families.

3. State park entrance fees and fees for basic facilities such as simplecampsites should be kept as close to current levels as possible. Fees formore elaborate facilities might be increased by a slightly greater amount tohelp cover the additional costs associated with those facilities.

4. Fee increases should be incremental to ensure adequate participation.Any fee range increases should be limited to significantly less than thefull proposed increases.

Brian SybertNatural Resources DirectorLone Star Chapter, Sierra Club512/477-1729512/477-8526 [FAX]briansybert@earthlink.net

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Scott SilverWild Wilderness248 NW Wilmington Ave.Bend, OR 97701

phone: 541-385-5261e-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.orgInternet: http://www.wildwilderness.org

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BEGIN QUOTE FROM HERITAGE FOUNDATION PUBLICATIONhttp://www.policyreview.com/mar97/townsq.html."Even the federal government is getting into the act. In 1996, Congresspassed legislation allowing some national park managers to raise entranceand user fees to more realistic levels. In so doing, Congress is followingthe lead of the Texas state parks, where, for an appropriate fee, visitorscan participate in a cattle drive, hike through the Chihuahua Desertwilderness and enjoy special nature tours. Through such strategies, theTexas Parks and Wildlife Department hopes to make all its state parksfinancially self-sustaining."

FROM: Enviro-Capitalists: Doing Good While Doing Well by Terry L. Andersonand Donald R. Leal (Rowman & Littlefield, forthcoming spring 1997).

[nightfly]

To make our public wilderness available to only paying customers or should I say the finanicaly elite, is a drastic and fundemental shift in the state of our park and public land affairs. In my opinion an increas in user fees will reduce number of visits to our public lands. I for one do not have five hundred extra dollars a year to take my family and myself out into the woods, one of the only forms of recreation that still (and should)cost nothing. I do not feel that I should have to support the park service every time I enter a public wilderness.(money for advancements such as new state of the art campgrounds or a paved walkway to the top of local monoliths(That I do not use) I pay my taxes and I expect that my money should go towards things I care about, I expect that my wild places should be taken care of(proper trail care and sanitary functions at high use areas). These and others like them do not have to be high revinue expenses. The direction the forest/park service is going distress me. Gates everywhere and user fees in the name of conservation is a bandaid fix. I believe in the long run, less use will result. This could mean a loss of appreciation for our wild places, creating generational gaps of non wilderness users, in the long run these people will have no appreciation for wild places. I will not dare to speculate the next evolutionary step, for who knows what will result. I do know that the effects of a population born and bred in an urban environment with 911 around the corner, and a Macdonalds on every other block with no respect for wild places could be drastic.

I do not have any answers but I believe teaching sustainability starts at an early age. This is not a bandaid solution.

Any comments welcome

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: nightfly ]

[Dave_Schuldt]

I will bet my climbing gear that fees for loggers, miners and grazers are not going up.

[Fairweather]

While I agree with much of what you write I must point out....You mention California's "progressive" state parks system that actually lowered park fees. Unfortunately, a large percentage of State Park campsites are not available for use by the general public as they are set aside for the homeless....and it aint' pretty, much less sanitary. ( Don't believe me? Go down to Dash Point State Park right here is good old WA State.) While I don't have a major problem with this as a stop-gap solution, the great state of California has made it somewhat of a permanent thing.

I think it is wrong to charge exorbitant fees to use public lands. I think nominal fees CAN create a greater sense of ownership and silence tax-paying critics who view OUR persuits as elitist. Unfortunately, any $$$ raised will only be deducted from a would-have-been budget.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy by GW or his associates to gouge us. I think he has more important things to think about right now...

[jon]

Just to clarify, the text in my message is an email from Scott Silver. He periodically sends me updates and I post them because usually there is some good points and quality links to articles.