WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE COALITION
August 24, 2014

STOP THIS BILL

DEAR PUBLIC LANDS SUPPORTER

Action is urgently needed to stop a bill introduced in the House, and already rammed through Committee and ready for a floor vote.
HR 5204 would authorize the Forest Service and BLM to charge fees for all public lands, for any activity, by any person, any time.
Details follow. Please TAKE ACTION NOW!
Kitty Benzar



STOP THIS BILL
HOUSE BILL WOULD ALLOW FEES FOR ALL PUBLIC LAND ACCESS

Just before the House adjourned for their August recess, HR 5204 The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014, was introduced by U.S. Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) and rammed through the House Resources Committee, without a hearing, by its Chairman, U.S. Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA).

It's likely that Bishop and Hastings are planning to get HR 5204 attached as a rider to the FY2015 appropriations bill. Although HR 5204 has attracted no sponsor in the Senate so far, it's likely that if attached as an appropriations rider it will pass both chambers without scrutiny or public debate, and become the law of the land, because appropriations bills are considered "must pass" in order to avoid a government shutdown.

HR 5204, if enacted, could destroy the concept of public lands as places where everyone has access and is welcome. Every place, every activity, every person, could be required to pay a fee - an additional tax on top of the taxes that already support public lands - for access, regardless whether they are highly developed like National Parks and Forest Service or BLM campgrounds, or completely undeveloped like Wilderness Areas.

HR 5204 would allow the kind of fees that have not been controversial to continue, such as fees for developed campgrounds and National Park entrance fees. But in addition to those fees, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters. It would accomplish this by two types of fee: Day Use Fees and Permit Fees.

The only meaningful requirement for a Day Use Fee would be that where you park there is a toilet of some kind (could be a porta-potty or a stinky outhouse) within 1/2 mile.

The only meaningful requirement for a Permit Fee would be that where you park gives access to a "special area." Neither "special" nor "area" is defined. The land agencies would have complete discretion to claim that any place at all is a "special area."

So where there is a toilet it could be called a Day Use Fee. Where there is not a toilet, it could be called a Permit Fee. The result is the same: there would not be anyplace where a fee is not allowed. And since the agencies would get to keep all the fee money directly, there would be not be anywhere that they wouldn't have a strong incentive to charge a fee.

Public lands? Forget that. Not any more. Not if this passes.

There is other stuff in HR 5204 (like no more fee-free days, citizenship checks on annual pass holders, and overhead costs rising from 15% to 25%), but they only rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship of our public lands.
A detailed analysis of the major provisions is on our website at this link.
Congress is on vacation until the week after Labor Day. When they return, the 2015 appropriations bills will be among the top items of business. If Bishop and Hastings succeed in getting HR 5204 attached to one of them, it's almost guaranteed to pass.

What can stop it?
ONLY ONE THING: PUBLIC OUTRAGE-PUBLIC ACTION.

If you care about our public lands being turned into commodities available only to those who can afford to pay fees for everything, then you must let YOUR Representative and YOUR Senators hear from you. Tell them that this major change in public policy cannot be allowed, particularly without any public hearing or debate.

HR 5204 lacks any over-arching vision or framework of our public lands being spaces where we all are welcome and have access. Yet it's being supported by groups like the National Parks Conservation Association, The Wilderness Society, and America Outdoors, because it throws a bone here and there to their special interests. But for the general public, there is nothing redeeming in this bill, nor any way it could be amended into something acceptable. It represents a complete change in public lands policy, which would be accomplished without public hearings or debate.

Tell your congressional delegation to OPPOSE HR 5204 and TO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE ATTACHED TO AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL!

All the contact information you need can be found at http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov.

Use their webform.
Call their office in Washington.
Call their local office.
Write, phone, fax, drop in in person.

Do all of the above. And then do it again!

Your personal action is urgently needed or this bill WILL PASS!

IF THAT HAPPENS, KISS YOUR ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS GOODBYE.




The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition is a broad-based organization consisting of diverse interests including hiking, biking, boating, equestrian and motorized enthusiasts, community groups, local and state elected officials, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, and just plain citizens.

Our goals are:
o To eliminate recreation fees for general access to public lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
o To eliminate backcountry fees and interpretive program fees in National Parks
o To require more accountability within the land management agencies
o To encourage Congress to adequately fund our public lands

Thank you for your support!

Sincerely,

Kitty Benzar
Western Slope No Fee Coalition

Western Slope No Fee Coalition | P.O. Box 135 | Durango | CO | 81302

Would this overrule the supreme court ruling saying they cannot charge you a fee just for parking on any NF or BLM lands? We have this issue in WA where most trailheads require a NW forest pass to park at the trailheads, but these passes were deemed illegal to require so most WA hikers and climbers just ignore it and park anyway.

We have quite the dichotomy here. We have outrage over our wilderness being trampled, and at the same time, outrage over pretty much the only legislation that can stop the trampling. I'd like to believe that people would practice LNT ethics through greater education, but the evidence is contrary. Many of the popular 14ers are trash bins. I support the fees so we can keep the access we have before the EPA shuts everything down. Sorry.

Matt Lemke wrote:Would this overrule the supreme court ruling saying they cannot charge you a fee just for parking on any NF or BLM lands? We have this issue in WA where most trailheads require a NW forest pass to park at the trailheads, but these passes were deemed illegal to require so most WA hikers and climbers just ignore it and park anyway.

Yup. The fee wasn't found unconstitutional or anything like that... just illegal. So Congress can pass a new law and just make it legal... if they choose to do so.

WyomingSummits wrote:We have quite the dichotomy here. We have outrage over our wilderness being trampled, and at the same time, outrage over pretty much the only legislation that can stop the trampling. I'd like to believe that people would practice LNT ethics through greater education, but the evidence is contrary. Many of the popular 14ers are trash bins. I support the fees so we can keep the access we have before the EPA shuts everything down. Sorry.

Who is outraged about wilderness being trampled?

On the contrary... I think most people think it would be better if even more people got out there. People are too fat and inactive, and if you want solitude there are still an insane number of places you can obtain it.

Also I don't see how charging a fee protects anything at all in any way whatsoever. A fee is not a quota or a prerequisite for one. (not to imply that quotas have their merits either)

I hate fees. I won't even leave my apartment anymore except for work if this happens

mrchad9 wrote:

Matt Lemke wrote:Would this overrule the supreme court ruling saying they cannot charge you a fee just for parking on any NF or BLM lands? We have this issue in WA where most trailheads require a NW forest pass to park at the trailheads, but these passes were deemed illegal to require so most WA hikers and climbers just ignore it and park anyway.

Yup. The fee wasn't found unconstitutional or anything like that... just illegal. So Congress can pass a new law and just make it legal... if they choose to do so.

WyomingSummits wrote:We have quite the dichotomy here. We have outrage over our wilderness being trampled, and at the same time, outrage over pretty much the only legislation that can stop the trampling. I'd like to believe that people would practice LNT ethics through greater education, but the evidence is contrary. Many of the popular 14ers are trash bins. I support the fees so we can keep the access we have before the EPA shuts everything down. Sorry.

Who is outraged about wilderness being trampled?

On the contrary... I think most people think it would be better if even more people got out there. People are too fat and inactive, and if you want solitude there are still an insane number of places you can obtain it.

Also I don't see how charging a fee protects anything at all in any way whatsoever. A fee is not a quota or a prerequisite for one. (not to imply that quotas have their merits either)

I'm not saying the OP is outraged, but I've been seeing enough Climbing and Rock and Ice articles on our mountains being trashed to make me uneasy. Not the usual Everest hoopla either....here in the states. Seems like every time some hippy in a mag or newspaper runs these stories, legislation or closure follows down the road. My thinking is maybe some fees would delay that? M maybe I'm wrong? Either way, I'm tired of seeing the irresponsible use of our wilderness.

Look at the politics. The goal here is not to raise money or to protect the pristine. The ultimate aim, I have no doubt, is to erode use of and support for public lands in order to create an argument for turning more of them over to states or private interests for extractive purposes.

It's telling that one of the sponsors is from Utah, a state that has been trying to undermine conservation interests for a long time now and which has been trying to seize control of federal lands it wants to develop for mining and other such uses.

That said, permits and quotas are far more likely to deter me than fees are, but I don't welcome fees in most places, either.

Fees provide Congress an excuse to cut the budgets of these agencies. The so-called conservatives (who certainly don't want to conserve anything) can argue that the agencies don't need appropriations for what the fees can pay for.

Although I generally consider myself a conservative, this is one glaring example of where the conservatives fail miserably. Keep federal BLM and NF lands the way they are damnit!! Especially in Utah, Colorado and god forbid the Cascades! Oil/gas drilling and mining have many other places with state, or privately owned land to utilize in areas desolate of any beauty or recreational use (aka North Dakota, eastern Wyoming and Colorado, Texas etc.)

If fees do become enacted though, I will continue to do as I normally do:
1. Drive into National parks at night
2. Straight up ignore self service fee stations for parking, and entrance into our public lands
3. Ignore permit requirements (unless it's designed to limit the number of people visiting a pristine area...see #4 below)
4. Avoid busy areas that require quota permits
5. Avoid established campgrounds
6. Park my car where ever I damn well please
7. Camp where ever I damn well please on BLM/NF lands

If I get caught...so be it but that's highly unlikely lol

Flame on

Buz Groshong wrote:Fees provide Congress an excuse to cut the budgets of these agencies. The so-called conservatives (who certainly don't want to conserve anything) can argue that the agencies don't need appropriations for what the fees can pay for.

Yup, beware conservatives pushing bills that purportedly support the upkeep of public lands. The real agenda is much different.

Typically, fees are consumed as follows: @25% is used to "administer" (collect) the fees. The remaining 75% is used a someone's salary to enforce the fee.

A lot, if not most of back country improvements (trash collecting, trail fixing, etc.) is done by volunteers. I have been a National Park volunteer, and that's what we did (pick up garbage and fix trails or things that got broken).

With all the fees in recent years, is the wilderness in better shape than say 50 years ago when everything was free?

Finally, the drought will do way more damage to the wilderness than people do, with the exception of human-caused fires.

Bob Sihler wrote:Look at the politics. The goal here is not to raise money or to protect the pristine. The ultimate aim, I have no doubt, is to erode use of and support for public lands in order to create an argument for turning more of them over to states or private interests for extractive purposes.

It's telling that one of the sponsors is from Utah, a state that has been trying to undermine conservation interests for a long time now and which has been trying to seize control of federal lands it wants to develop for mining and other such uses.

That's a pretty good observation... never occurred to me. I had thought it odd that a Republican was pushing this and wondered why. Although I am so missing the point of this I'd have found it odd if a Democrat was pushing it too.