USFS Forest Pass opinions and latest legislation?

<br>Yes, taxes and fees are a pain, but $65 to cover all of that for a year is not outrageous even for the less well off. For those of us who choose to spend our hard earned dollars on skiing, the fees add up to less than two days of lift tickets, or a third of a pair of Fritschis... I consider it a cost of doing business, like any other piece of equipment.<br><br>Personally, I'm happy to pay a few bucks for a pass and to know that the parking areas are being patrolled. With all the car prowls and vadalism that occur out there it's nice to think the criminals might at least have a little bit of fear in them.

<br><br>If $65 was all we had to pay that would be fine but you forget, we are already taxed to pay for these services. If the park ranger was not trying to be a pain in our butt he would just put a reminder envelope as has been done in the past to pay the $5. If they are going to start writing citations then they will start being treated like meter-maids and their job then would seem to be more money-collectors then actually tending to the forest and trails.

hope you do all realize what exactly the forest pass does. ??? it is much more than allowing you to park in a convenient location to begin a journey to a favorite spot. i am certainitly not one to promote the 'pay to play' era, but i don't think the $30 or $65 is asking too much. the salaries that are paid to seasonal employees for the usfs is composed mostly of 'forest pass' incomings and hard earned grants. these seasonal employees not only repair and maintain trailhead facilities, but the trail system as well, with a focus on maintenance of the wilderness areas. Along with the wilderness permits that are self-issued at any trailhead that leads into a wilderness area, the old yellow envelope that so many of us have gotten on our cars are being tracked and recorded more closely. this is not just for big bro to keep record of you so much as just to identify who is using what area and how often, which helps funding to be delivered to where it needs to, blah,blah,blah,,,,blah....<br>as far a getting an envelope vs. a citation, i can tell you it is just up to the ranger on that particular day. it is paying their job too. frontcountry and wilderness. is 30-65bucks really too much?

Here is an interesting article I found, originally posted in 2004. <br>

---

<br>Park fee plan is a bust<br><br>The U.S. Forest Service spent $1.6 million building an outhouse near the Maroon Bells, then whined it didn't have money for toilet paper and cleaning supplies. Now it charges citizens a fee just to look at the famous peaks. The paradox is just one example of why the federal recreation fee demonstration program is a bust.<br><br>Congress is considering two diametrically opposed proposals concerning the mismanaged recreation fee program. One deserves support: It would end the fees on National Forests and most other public lands, allowing only the National Park Service to continue collecting certain charges.<br><br>Since 1996, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies have collected tens of millions of dollars in recreation fees. For all practical purposes, the recreation fees are entrance fees, requiring visitors to pay to visit their own public lands. These fees are in addition to charges for campgrounds and other specific services.<br><br>The recreation fee program has so many numerous flaws that it has become fundamentally, fatally flawed. For one thing, the BLM and Forest Service haven't used fee money to pay for maintenance and conservation, as they promised Congress.<br><br>The program may cost more to run than it generates. Last year, the General Accounting Office (Congress' non-partisan investigative arm) said the Forest Service collected $35 million in recreation fees in 2001. But the Forest Service spent another $10 million in appropriated funds just to keep the fee program running. The GAO hasn't studied the BLM's use of recreation fees, but the programs' opponents suspect the BLM has been just as sloppy with the funds.<br><br>Meanwhile, public opposition to the fee program is growing. Commissioners in Jackson, Pitkin and Routt counties recently sent letters or passed resolutions opposing the program. Earlier, similar action was taken by Hinsdale, San Juan and San Miguel counties. The legislatures of Colorado and California also have come out against recreation fees.<br><br>U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, a Wyoming Republican, has offered a reasonable solution. S. 1107 would end recreation fees in national forests and on BLM and most other federal lands. The agencies could still charge for campgrounds and some specific services.<br><br>Thomas' bill would, however, let the National Park Service continue collecting entrance fees (as it has done historically) in addition to a small surcharge. Unlike the other agencies, the Park Service has used its fee money wisely: Eighty 80 percent of fees collected by an individual park stay with that park. The 20 percent sent to Washington goes mostly to help the Park Service clear its nationwide, billion-dollar maintenance backlog. Several parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, wrote business plans that identify pressing needs and allocate fee money to pay for them.<br><br>Last week, the Senate's 23-member Energy and Resources Committee passed Thomas' S. 1107 unanimously. Among its supporters was Colorado Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell.<br><br>Thomas' sensible measure could encounter trouble on the Senate floor. U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton is lobbying to get the bill amended so the BLM, Forest Service and other agencies could keep charging recreation fees. Such amendments would be unwise.<br><br>Meanwhile, U. S. Rep. Ralph Regula (an Ohio Republican without a single national forest or BLM area in his district) wants to make recreation fees permanent and expand the program to include U.S. Corps of Engineers. If his H.R. 3283 passes, Americans could pay through the nose to just set foot on their own public lands.<br><br>Regula's proposal may get sent to the House Resources Committee. Two Coloradans on the committee, Democrat Mark Udall of Boulder and Scott McInnis from the Western Slope, should ensure that Regula's bill gets a swift and unceremonious political burial.

is 30-65bucks really too much?

<br>Hey Sithl, it's actually going to be $85 for me this year as I need the Shasta and Adams climbing permits. This doens't include what I'm going to pay for an MRNP pass, or an Oregon State park pass. Is it too much for me to pay? No. I just don't like the notion of paying for services that should be funded from other sources. I fully agree that the services Fee Demo alledgedly go to (aside from enforcement) do need to be funded, but this isn't the appropriate way to do it. <br><br>I do have no harsh feelings towards the low-level rangers enforcing the program, I realize they are just doing their job. I do think it is bad style that they don't install the bridge across the Eliot (it'd take only few hours?) before starting to give tickets. The bridge is laying just a few yards away from it's installation point--we almost thought about trying to install it <br><br>So does anyone out there know what the latest legislation regarding fee demo is? I found this on wildwilderness.org, but I don't know how accurate it is:<br>

For Immediate Release<br>Saturday, November 20, 2004<br>Contact Brian Kennedy or Matt Streit at (202) 226-9019<br><br>Recreation Fee Demonstration Bill <br>Passes <br><br>Washington, DC - Today the Congress passed H.R. 3283, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, introduced by Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH). The bill will improve recreational facilities and visitor opportunities on federal recreational lands by reinvesting receipts from fair and consistent recreational fees and passes.<br><br>"This legislation ensures continued access to recreational opportunites on our federal land while protecting the public's pocketbook," said House Committee on Resources Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA). "We have given federal land managers the ability to assess reasonable fees for specific activities and uses. This bill will put an end to fears that fees will be misused by federal land managers since we have laid out very specific circumstances under which these fees can be collected and subsequently reinvested."<br><br>The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Rec Fee Demo) was originally proposed in 1996 as a tool to generate needed revenue to manage the growing occurrence of recreation on public land. The program has been both praised and assailed by federal land users. Since its inception, federal land managers have been able to actively reinvest fees assessed into the site or activities used.<br><br>After numerous concerns and reauthorizations, the House Resources Committee, the committee with authorizing jurisdiction, undertook reauthorizing the Rec Fee Program. Rep. Regula's bill will extend the program for 10 years and specifically states where and what a fee may and may not be charged for, while also establishing types of fees.<br><br>The bill also incorporates public participation by establishing Recreation Advisory Committees that will consist of members of the local government and recreation community. This group will provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding the establishment, elimination, or adjustment of a fee. Additionally, a Federal Lands Pass will be established for all entrance and amenity fees for federal lands. <br>

<br>

I'm with jibberd on this one. I don't mind paying my share. Sure I pay income tax me too, but what bugs me there is using my income tax $ to subsidize various forms of land rape, not that I need to kick in a little extra in fees to support trailhead and trail maintenance. Seeing groups like WTA monitor to ensure that the $ flow actually goes to support projects that benefit the fee-payers helps ease the teeny tiny sting of the fees. I vote for tax-and-spend liberals, but since the majority votes for tax-cutting-war-mongers you gotta figure money is tight everywhere...<br><br>If you want to get your knickers in a twist over unfair taxation, study up on NOVA funding. Your gasoline purchases are paying for projects to support off-road-vehicle use (dirt bikes, snowmobiles, etc). 80% of this fund is being spent on behalf of folks who contribute just 20% of the dollars. Check out www.wawild.org/campaigns/ftc.htm for more on this, and do some mental math to see if you're spending more on entrance/parking fees or on gas taxes that are used to build dirt bike trails...