America the Beautiful Pass-- Ripoff or Reasonable?

Article

Images (6)

Comments (57)

America the Beautiful Pass-- Ripoff or Reasonable?

Page Type: Article

Page By: Bob Sihler

Created/Edited: Feb 13, 2009 / Feb 17, 2009

Object ID: 489416

Hits: 3317

Page Score: 90.71% - 44 Votes

Vote: Log in to vote

Table of Contents

Foreword

Since forum threads on controversial subjects sometimes devolve into personal attacks or go off on tangents only marginally related to the original topic, I’ve made this submission an article rather than a forum topic. My hope is that any debate the article spurs will be spirited but respectful, but if two or more people head down that road of personal vilification or off-topic posts, any newcomer to this topic can always read it according to its original intent and add new comments while the keyboard warriors boldly continue to launch electronic missiles at one another.

Also-- although I normally respond to every comment someone makes on a submission of mine, I can see that this article may generate so many comments that it may be difficult for me to keep up with the replies. Therefore, I will read every comment and do appreciate every civil and constructive one whether you agree or disagree with me, but I may refrain from a reply if my answer has already been revealed in the text, if the comment is mostly an affirmation of my position, or if I perceive the tone of the comment to be insulting; as to that last-- I welcome civil debate but disdain Internet bravado.

Thank you for reading.

Photographs-- the pictures here are of public-owned areas not protected by the NPS and not currently subject to user fees; they are places dear to my heart and places I strongly feel are worth our collective effort to preserve.

Opening

On January 1, 2007, the National Parks Pass and the Golden Eagle Hologram became things of the past, replaced by the America the Beautiful Pass, also know as the Interagency Pass. The new pass, which is a fairly pricey $80, covers admission to all federal fee areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS), the USDA Forest Service (FS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS-- administers most national wildlife refuges), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM--sometimes not-so-fondly known as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining), and the Bureau of Reclamation (think dams). Previously, one could pay $50 for a National Parks Pass and an extra $15 for the hologram expanding access to other federal fee areas.

Leading up to the enactment of this program, there was a good bit of criticism of it here on SP. Some people either had the impression or tried to give the impression that this pass would be required for use of any federally owned public land. Some posted links to blogs and articles that exuded hysteria and conspiracy theories; I even saw one article claiming that the off-road-vehicle lobby was somehow behind it all. (Some of those pages have since disappeared, but here is a discussion begun by a respected Western publisher and commentator; note not only his certainly valid points but also the valid points by the few who disagree with him.) Another blog I read seemed to imply that declining park visitation is because of higher fees and that the fees are a sinister way for powerful special interests to erode public support for the parks so that they (the special interests) can gradually turn them into places for private enterprise.

Well, it is within the realm of possibility that that is true, and, in fact, some people who worked for or with the Bush Administration did espouse the idea of privatizing some of the smaller, “less profitable” national parks, but maybe declining park visitation, if it is in fact occurring, also has something to do with the fact that we Americans get lazier and fatter by the second, or that high summer gas prices and less free time due to our work schedules and commutes play a role, but maybe the mysterious special interests are behind that, too. You see, fast-food companies, along with the oil industry, are encouraging us to eat unhealthy foods and are raising gas prices in an attempt to keep us in bad shape and at home, which will cause a collapse in support for national parks since no one will be visiting them, which will, in turn, enable those companies to buy parklands at basement prices and use them for grazing so that they can hostilely take over American ranching, buy up all the ranchland, and turn those places into subdivisions, strip malls, and drilling fields. Then more and more Americans will live farther and farther from their workplaces, resulting in more gasoline usage, which will result in higher prices, longer working hours, and so on.

If you just read the above paragraph and are thinking that sounds pretty plausible, then for your own sake I suggest you stop reading this article. First, it was heavy on sarcasm. Second, if you read on, you may get into a fit over something that really is not worth blowing your top over.

Time could prove all that to be right, of course (I guess). And the bill’s wording does open the door to an expansion of fee areas (which shouldn’t matter to pass holders). But for now at least, the program is what it says it is, or at least it seems to be.

Rocky Mountain; Bob Marshall Wilderness, MT

Arguments

Here are some reasonable criticisms of the policy and my own takes on them. It is not the definitive list of issues, and my views are not proposed as the final word on any of the issues but should be seen as just one person’s opinion and a starting point for civil debates.

But before you or I go on, let's establish a few things:

• Nobody likes paying fees. So although my overall position on this issue is one of support, I am not saying I am happy to be paying any fees, increased or otherwise.

• I am not under any illusions that the government wisely spends every dollar it collects. But when it comes to managing the wilderness, I trust private entities less than I do the government.

• There are always those who are going to be against taxes and fees and regulations. I am not trying to reach those people or change their minds; I am trying to reach those who believe fees are sometimes necessary but who have reservations about the current program.

• My observations and positions are based mostly on my experiences in the Rocky Mountain states, the Desert Southwest, and the East. I have read anecdotal evidence that fee programs are more burdensome in parts of California and the Pacific Northwest. It is my understanding that the America the Beautiful Pass covers federally owned fee areas there, but I would be interested to know if that has not been the case in particular instances.

San Juan Mountains, CO

Okay, on to those arguments--

• This was pushed through without any debate, attached to a must-pass spending bill. Fair enough. I live in the Washington, D.C. area, which is saturated with political news to an extent that most of the rest of the country is not. The fact that I did not hear about this program until environmental groups began complaining about it suggests there is a good bit of truth to this claim.

I could go on with this into a discussion of partisan politics (and my draft of this article did), but in the interests of keeping this a non-PnP topic, I'll just offer this:

This is what goes on in Washington all the time. Congressmen attach riders to must-pass bills; everyone rails against the practice but everyone keeps doing it. More likely than not, there are programs and/or regulations you support that got through by the same means. I'm not defending the practice; I'm just saying it is what it is and that idealism has its limits and ultimately must give way to realism. It may stink (actually, it does), but it does not, in my opinion, undermine the core idea of needing to increase funding for our public lands.

• It’s too expensive. $80 does seem pretty expensive, but it’s really not that bad when you consider what it gets you. Say you take a cross-country trip and visit ten national parks (regular entrance fees would cost $10-25 per park). That’s $8 per park for a week’s worth of access to each; if you are into the one-hour-dash method of visiting the parks and think you’re not getting your money’s worth, that’s your problem. In comparison, have you seen what it costs to go to a movie these days? Have you noticed how bad most of the movies are? Which is the better value?

If you live close to a park and visit it just once per month on average, it’s costing you less than $7 per visit. Go twice as often and it costs less than $3.50 per visit. If you don’t go to other parks, you can get an annual pass (less expensive) or just pay the regular fee if either is the more economical choice. It isn’t law that you have to buy the America the Beautiful Pass just to go to a national park or visit any other federal fee area.

• The costs are hard on the locals of modest or meager means. This is supposedly one of the reasons many Western-state legislators opposed the plan. Part of my response-- see the preceding paragraph. The other part-- the vast majority of FS and BLM lands do not require fees, and it is these lands that local hunters and fishers use the most, and a great deal of hikers, climbers, mountain bikers, etc. use them, too (and hunting and all off-road motorized travel, including by bicycle, are already banned in most national parks and many wilderness areas). If fee areas and, more importantly, fee levels dramatically increase, that could put a bite on lower-income wilderness users, and that is a reasonable concern that people ought to be alert to. That necessitates vigilance.

Also, $80 out of a year's earnings is not that much for most people; it is less than $7 per month. I suspect that most people for whom about $6.66 per month is a major expenditure are not spending what free time they have hiking and climbing, anyway, and I thus see this as one of those arguments that has emotional power but is weak in reality.

• This will hurt local economies. Anytime there’s an environment-related controversy, one or both sides trot out this argument, often cynically. Cancel a logging project and local kids will go without Christmas presents, some say. Raise fees at parks or campgrounds and people will stop coming, hurting the restaurants, motels, and stores in local towns, say some others. Keep the logging and the low or nonexistent fees and people will ultimately stop coming due to the eventual environmental degradation and/or traffic congestion, killing the local businesses, yet another faction may say. It’s hard to refute these scientifically; it is easy to find one essay or study showing these arguments are bunk and find another saying they aren’t. For every argument proclaiming that the local economy has improved with the scaling back of extractive industry and the increase of “ecotourism,” there’s a real guy sitting there whose way of life has disappeared. It’s hard-- the jobs created by a bad mining project shouldn’t be justification to keep ruining the land, but how do you tell those workers they are losing their livelihoods and have to do something else? But that’s another topic, and I digress.

Getting back to the idea that the higher fees will negatively impact local economies, I am highly skeptical. First, high travel expenses (airfares, car-rental costs, gasoline costs) are far more likely to deter me (and the much-maligned vacationing families that unload a lot of money on local economies) from visiting a place than an admission fee is. Second, backpackers, hikers, climbers, and many other outdoor-oriented people are seen by a lot of people as being notoriously cheap, and many of them are not pumping much money into local businesses. We’ll spend hundreds or thousands of dollars at REI (well, only those of us who are “soft,” that is), but we gripe about access fees. Go figure. We wear all our fancy clothes and use all our fancy equipment but sleep in cars instead of at campgrounds to save a few bucks (and to get some more privacy and quiet-- count me as guilty of this). It’s people like the birdwatchers, the skiers, the golfers, and the tourist families who are the types that spend the big bucks in the gateway and resort communities; most of the rest of us spend only what we have to while dashing through as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Local residents have more to fear from runaway development and the pricing out, plus the degradation of quality of life, that results from it than they do from increased fees in nearby parks and other natural areas. In many areas of the Mountain West, the proliferation of tacked-up subdivisions, trophy homes, and affluent transplants who want the politics, people, and culture of their new hometowns to match their old ones change communities by making land (and, accordingly, taxes) more expensive, killing small businesses and replacing them with big-box stores, chain restaurants, and niche shops catering to the well-heeled. Whenever I have to pass through some of these towns, I can’t help but think that except for the stunning mountains in view, I seem to be back home in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. The long-time residents in these towns sometimes adapt and get by or even flourish, but many get driven out by the changing demographics and lifestyles. So fear developers and those they serve or draw (depending on your view), not fees.

As a rebuttal to this, someone might point out the situation in Ouray, Colorado a few years ago. There was a fee system for the Canyon Creek area (think Yankee Boy Basin), but the system was discontinued after local business owners complained of lost business. I have no idea where the truth lay. Part of me can picture locals banding together to protest a program they found disagreeable just for its own sake; another part of me understands that although it is laughable to think that a fee deterred the thousands of out-of-staters who visit the area every year to see with their own eyes what so many calendars, posters, and the like depict, it might have encouraged in-state residents to go elsewhere on their weekend and day-off forays. Still, though, considering the popularity of the area with both in- and out-of-state people, I'm a little skeptical of those business owners' claims. Politicians aren't the only ones who take cynical stands on the issues.

• We already pay taxes for these places. We pay taxes for a lot of things, and no one is happy about all of the things his or her tax dollars support. There are people who resent that their taxes support places like national parks and other public lands, and they’re not only entitled to that view but also can sometimes eloquently and plausibly argue their case. I wish we appropriated more money to the parks and other wildlands, but the political reality is that it won’t happen anytime soon. The money just isn’t there without a large tax increase or cuts to programs that someone else cherishes (or canceling a war the government simply is not going to cancel, despite the rhetoric and despite whether it should or should not), and the chances of any unhidden tax increases at all are pretty slim for almost everyone. And what will happen if there is a tax increase, even one dedicated to funding the national parks? People, even park lovers, will say they're being ripped off or will complain that this wouldn’t be necessary if the government managed its (our) money better. People hate tax increases. It just becomes a circular argument-- we want all these things, don't want to pay more for them, and think we should instead cut elsewhere, as long as the cuts aren't to things we care about; or, we can increase funding, as long as the increases come from someone else's paycheck, preferably those who deserve to pay more (always a popular idea until you're a member of the must-pay-more crowd).

• Too much of the money goes to infrastructure, too little to conservation and restoration. I agree. I personally don’t have much interest in visitor centers, ranger programs, and the many road projects that strike me as little more than welfare for local construction companies and their employees, and I’d like to see more emphasis on trail maintenance, wilderness restoration, habitat protection, and wildlife conservation. Maybe healthier budgets will lead to these things. Maybe they won’t. But a lot of people do care about those things that I and some of you don’t. And enhanced visitor experiences can turn curious sightseers into devoted advocates of wilderness. Ranger programs can get kids into nature and away from their video games and televisions. Nobody who experiences nature closely is unchanged by it. Today’s tourist masses in air-conditioned visitor centers may produce some of tomorrow’s John Muirs, Bob Marshalls, and Aldo Leopolds.

• Why should we pay more when the loggers, miners, and grazers only face cut-rate costs for using public lands? That is an excellent point. My only answer, unsatisfying though it is: that situation is not changing anytime soon; and large-scale refusal to comply with policies, though some think such will lead to the abandonment of said policies, is more likely to become an argument for anti-wilderness forces that recreational users don’t care about wilderness as much as they say they do, leading to the development of policies that are even worse than what we have now.

• It is unfair that we are forced to pay for National Forest, USFWS, BLM, etc. sites if we primarily visit national parks and when before we had the option to pay extra for access to the non-NPS fee areas. Don't expect much of an argument from me here; I agree with the sentiment. It is not enough to turn me against the program, but I do think it's unfair. There are at least two explanations for this change. One is that the government is just using its power to make us hand over more of our money. The other is that places like national wildlife refuges are important but can never hope to pay for themselves through targeted user fees, and they need some extra help. But yes, it's still unfair that the choice is gone.

• It is not right that areas that never had fees before have fees now. I'm guessing that this argument resonates strongly with long-time locals and many people a good 10-20 years (at least) older than I am. The point has its merits, but there's also another perspective-- times and circumstances change. Let me use an example from my own back yard to illustrate...

Here in Virginia, we have Old Rag Mountain in Shenandoah National Park. It is in many ways a standout mountain for the Southeast, and one of the chief reasons for that is the Ridge Trail, a rocky route that includes a good deal of Class 3 scrambling and unbroken views, both of which are not terribly easy to find, especially together, in Virginia or any other Southeastern state. In short, although the trail traffic there can be maddening, it is easy to understand why there is so much trail traffic.

I first climbed Old Rag in 1994. It was busy then, and it is busier now. Unless one goes on a winter weekday, peace and quiet are hard to find unless the weather is poor. Back in 1994, there were no fees for those approaching Old Rag from outside the park, which is what the vast majority of Old Rag's climbers do.

March 1997 was the last time I climbed Old Rag for almost 11 years. The crowds just became too frustrating, especially at some of the narrow Class 3 areas, where lines would often form because of someone inching his or her way up with the kind of caution one might expect of someone free soloing El Capitan. Sometime between 1994 and 2007, probably when the Fee Demonstration Program began (one of the precursors to the current situation), the Park Service began requiring user fees.

This made perfect sense to me. The area had become overcrowded and overused. Signs of wear were apparent all over the trail system. User fees probably did not cut the crowds much, and they will not restore the damage done to the mountain as long as the mountain remains open to the public, which it should and will, but those fees might help meet other important needs the park faces. Also, it puts a tangible out-of-pocket cost on the impact people make.

Related: I pretty much only go to one place; it has never had fees and does now. That stinks, but, and I don't mean to be flippant, you should buy an annual pass instead of paying each time you go, or you should diversify your interests. Going back to the Old Rag example-- if you've been visiting Old Rag every weekend for the last ten years, that might mean you know the place better and may even appreciate it more than others do, but it doesn't lessen your impact on the resource. In fact, you are probably making much more of an impact than the average visitor is, and maybe it's time to give a little extra back.

And that brings me to the last point to cover:

• Some of these fee programs are ripoffs and serve no need other than the government's need to raise money. Despite my overall position, I will not deny that. For a good example of such an abusive and possibly illegal program, watch this video by a well-known SP member and site administrator about the fee program on Mount Evans in Colorado. Long story short-- the federal government is charging you to drive and, in some cases, hike, on a road and land owned by the city of Denver, not the Forest Service. Furthermore, according to the video, no one is saying where the money is going.

Although I disagree that a fee itself is inappropriate, I agree that it is wrong for people to have to pay to an entity that is not responsible for most of the facilities they are paying to visit. Here, we have a good example of an abusive program. Where such programs exist, they should be called out and challenged. But as to the argument that it's wrong to pay for services you don't personally use but which a public entity is deciding to provide, I refer to the argument four bullet points above. There's a lot of gray in that argument, but I do generally believe that it is not unreasonable to expect user fees to cover the services that are provided to all, even though few individuals utilize all those services. To recap-- when I go to a national park, I rarely go to visitor centers or attend ranger programs, but it doesn't bother me that my user fees help pay for them. If I feel the cost exceeds the value, I can choose not to go. And the vast majority of public lands, including the mountains, are still fee-free.

Great Divide Basin, WY

In Conclusion

I’m cautiously supportive of the America the Beautiful Pass and the Fee Demonstration Program that led to it (that program was the one that created increased entrance fees for most national parks and established user fees for some very heavily used non-NPS sites back around 1996). The land agencies do need more money. The government won’t give it to them. And can’t we give a little extra back instead of wanting everything to be free? I say this not with the smugness of someone who lives in opulence and can shrug at fee increases but with the perspective of a teacher who makes a decent salary but is far, far away from making the Forbes list.

If every national forest access road develops a fee station and every BLM parking lot starts seeing ticket-wielding rangers patrolling them and checking for passes, we have a problem. Currently, it’s mostly only the national parks and some very popular non-NPS areas that have fees. As I said, we need to watch for “fee-station creep,” and we must vocally oppose it if and when it manifests itself. In fact, I’ve read that more increases are planned, that by 2020 it could cost $50 to visit parks like Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. If those increases are fair relative to inflation or needs resulting from user impacts, okay. If not, get ready to protest.

But in the meantime, can those of us who frequently visit national parks and other wilderness areas that charge fees part with a little extra money to give something back to the places that have given us much, much more than we can ever repay? These places have immeasurably changed my life for the better; I'm thus willing to do a little more than everyone else has to do. Maybe the wilderness areas belong to all Americans and thus must be supported to some extent by all Americans, and maybe they are treasures that deserve to exist even if taxes and user fees can never meet all their needs, but is it that unreasonable to ask those who use them the most to put in a little extra?

Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT

P.S.

This is not the take of an ideologically crazed right-wing fanatic who’s tired of hearing the moaning of liberal environmentalists. I admit I’m more conservative than I am liberal and seem to be politically right of the SP mainstream, but in political terms, I think of myself as a Republican disgusted with what the Republican Party has become but unable to buy much of what the Democrats are selling. I’m more like a Roosevelt Republican-- advocating strong defense, economic fairness, wilderness conservation, and toughness on crime-- something about as rare these days as a Truman or JFK Democrat.

I’m no secret apologist for those that rape the land or enable those who do. The dollar-driven practices of developers/builders and the oil industry, the former of whom will happily tack up anything anywhere and the latter of whom will drill anywhere for every little drop when drilling will never solve our energy problems, sicken me. The many other businesses and corporations that seem to see the wilderness as a resource for pecuniary profit and nothing more likewise dismay me. The many ORV operators who show a complete lack of civic responsibility infuriate me. So do the mining companies that make toxic messes and then leave them for the taxpayers to clean up. And then there are those landowners who legally and sometimes illegally block access to public lands. I am well right of center if you talk to me about certain issues, but I’m solidly left of center on other issues, including most conservation and environmental ones. However, I just can’t see in this fee program the Orwellian scenario that some others do. So I simply want to tell people that the parks and the national forests and their brethren are still there, you can still go to them, you probably won’t have to get on the welfare rolls after you do so, and that it might be both good and right to pay a little more to preserve what we love.

So what do you all think?

Mt. March Madness-- Wyoming Range, WY

P.P.S.

If you see that this page has been edited since its submission date, please take my word that it has only been edited for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I will not change or add any positions and thus misrepresent the original submission.

Images

Comments

[ Post a Comment ]

Viewing: 41-57 of 57

« PREV 1 2 3 NEXT »


	tarol	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Voted 10/10	Thanks to the stimulus bill that just passed this is poised to happen ;) Stay tuned, land management agencies just got a large infusion of money to help create jobs and there will be a resurgence akin to what the CCC's did.
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 10:38 am


	tarol	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Voted 10/10	Bob - simple - employ more people like me who can do outreach programs in schools and communities and get them involved in their public lands ;) Which they not only can visit and recreate on and derive enjoyment from, but also from where their water comes, their clean air, etc.
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 10:51 am


	lcarreau	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Voted 10/10	YES - I sincerely love your optimism on this issue. Agreed, there needs to be a "resurgence" on the trails maintenance/land conservation side of the coin. For those who just want to pitch a tent, and hike to their favorite landmark (without having to look at crowds, graffiti and trash!)
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 12:04 pm


	Bob Sihler	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Hasn't voted	That's a great idea; I wish I saw more of that around here. It's always been my experience that when kids are exposed to nature, most of them enjoy it. Unfortunately, it's hard to find the time to do that in today's world. That's why getting the schools involved is an idea that has a lot going for it. In fact, some years ago, I started a hiking club at the school where I teach. Almost ten years later, those kids still remember our outings as great times.
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 12:35 pm


	tarol	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Voted 10/10	More info on how the Forest Service is going to be a key player in this nation's economic recovery can be found here, just like it was back in the CCC era. National Parks will also be a player in this.
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 8:50 pm


	dyusem	Re: Some outdoorspeople are poor
	Voted 10/10	Organizations like Yosemite National Institutes (recently re-named NatureBridge) have programs (http://yni.org/yi/partner_programs/wildlink.php) that help to introduce underprivileged inner-city kids to our beloved wilderness. Perhaps a portion of the America the Beautiful Pass is presently helping to fund outings of this nature and if it isn't perhaps it should help fund these activities; like others have have suggested, these types of experiences last a lifetime and open new vistas that would have remained out of reach to many of these kids and young adults. As to the OP's well thought out post: the fees are completely reasonable however there should be some type of sliding scale (as was suggested) which would be more equitable and perhaps based on type of vehicle or headcount although that added complexity may be more problematic than it is worth. That said I look forward to paying this fee even though I have no idea whether the funds are properly allocated or even if they are dedicated to programs within the NPS or other similar entities. Great topic and one that should find proper resolution under the current administration IF we make our voices heard.
		Posted Feb 22, 2009 10:37 pm

tarol

A couple of points

Voted 10/10

Great article, but I think I can add a little first-hand knowledge. I've worked for National Parks and Forests and I know where this fee money is going... In my current position I see the full cycle: I help collect it and every week account for it and send it in to the bank and then even get to decide how to spend some of it when we plan out our fiscal year budgets. And almost daily I hear a lot of ignorant comments about these passes... Allow me to clarify a few points. And feel free to email me if you have an intelligent question and I'll do my best to help answer it.

"It is unfair that we are forced to pay for National Forest, USFWS, BLM, etc. sites if we primarily visit national parks and when before we had the option to pay extra for access to the non-NPS fee areas."

Who says you are paying for other sites? The site from which you buy the pass keeps 80% of that money. So, for example, you buy your $80 ATB pass from Joshua Tree National Park, then 80% of the money stays with J Tree. So be sure to buy your pass from the park/forest/area that you want to benefit most from your money, that is probably the one you visit the most.

"We already pay taxes for these places."

Check again... you already pay taxes but is the money going to these places? Write your congressmen and women if you'd like to see this statement be a reality.

"It’s too expensive."

Have you checked out the price for state park annual passes lately? This is a bargain comparatively.

"I pretty much only go to one place"

Probably no need to buy an America the Beautiful Pass then, most parks have annual passes for just that park and they are usually in the neighborhood of $30 or so.

"This will hurt local economies"

Local businesses in many cases can sell these National passes and local passes as well and make a cut.

"The costs are hard on the locals of modest or meager means"

I come from modest and meager means but I find that if I manage my money wisely and set aside a little bit of money I can afford the pass every year. And if even then you truly can't afford it, then do a little bit of research or stop in the visitor center/ranger station to ask someone like myself and you can usually find out where they can go hiking, climbing, camping, etc. for free or reduced-cost. There are still ample opportunities for this across CA and across the country, more than enough to fill a few lifetimes worth.

"Too much of the money goes to infrastructure, too little to conservation and restoration."

Two comments for this one:

1. What the money gets spent on is driven by public demand and the govt getting the most bang out of your buck. But, if you don't agree, write a well-thought out letter to your local park/forest manager or set up a meeting with him/her. You'd be surprised at how much influence one person doing this will have.

2. It's been proven that having a person buy a pass to visit a park or forest changes their attitude about that place, that is gives it tangible worth, and they are much more likely to take care of it. So the pass program indirectly helps conserve the area. The National Forests in Southern California are a prime example of this. Before the Adventure Pass program there was a much larger problem with gangs and graffiti and trash and everything else. There still is a problem, believe me I know, but it has diminished. People now stop in at the Ranger Station, buy their pass often from someone who is bilingual and can tell them about the area, and they can also pick up trash bags, find out why they shouldn't leave their diapers in the creek, etc. And thanks to the pass program there are trashcans and toilets near the creek. If they don't buy a pass, they often get a reminder on their window to pay the $5 daily fee (placed there by an employee usually paid for by the program) or they get a chance to buy the $30 annual pass or $80 ATB pass. I know that many of them then come in and do just that. The pass program thus educates a lot of people, either the first time around or the second time, and if it does nothing else than this to land managers it is still worth it. Also, having employees out there at trailheads/picnic areas/etc. doing fee compliance (checking for passes) helps cut down on vandalism and that definitely helps conserve and reduce the need for restoration.

Posted Feb 18, 2009 10:23 am


	Bob Sihler	Re: A couple of points
	Hasn't voted	Great information, and a great contrast to the contrarian point of view another member expressed. I did not know 80% went to the park where one purchased the pass (I vaguely recall something like that with the initial fee demo program) and will keep that in mind. The two opposite sides on this issue will probably never find agreement on it, but I'm glad to see detailed responses from both sides here. Thank you for taking the time to post this and your other comments here!
		Posted Feb 18, 2009 2:13 pm

alpinedon

Nice article

Voted 10/10

I'm still not sure where I stand, though I generally do reluctantly buy the various passes we need out here in the NW, mostly because it would cost me a lot more to be fined than it does to buy the passes. But Geez - NW Forest Park Pass, Sno-Park passes, America The Beautiful Passes, where does it all end? Plus, the land-managers tend to be sneaky about starting up new fees - like when the NW parking pass began it was supposed to just be a 'test run', but now is firmly established. It's like the saying goes 'the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy'. Well, excellent article regardless!

Posted Feb 21, 2009 8:47 pm


	tarol	Re: Nice article
	Voted 10/10	It was an Act of Congress that made the pass program permanent in the Northwest and on all federal lands, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, in December 2004. There was a ton of talk before and after the act got passed so I don't think I would call it sneaky.
		Posted Feb 22, 2009 2:16 pm


	alpinedon	Re: Nice article
	Voted 10/10	Well, bad wording on my part I guess.
		Posted Feb 22, 2009 2:38 pm


	Bob Sihler	Re: Nice article
	Hasn't voted	Thanks for sharing-- I don't remember being caught totally unawares, but I do remember thinking that the "test run" of the fee demo program wouldn't end unless it were a flop or extremely controversial. And thank you for reading!
		Posted Feb 22, 2009 4:59 pm


	FortMental	Still No.
	Hasn't voted	Regarding the value of "a ton of talk".....the following is excerpted from the NY Times Article entitled, "Ideas & Trends; Flooded With Comments, Officials Plug Their Ears" By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE Published: November 17, 2002 Beyond that, officials say the sheer volume of public comment is not a determining factor. ''It was not a vote,'' said Steve Iobst, assistant superintendent of Grand Teton. The point of the comment period, he said, is to yield substantive, informed letters that alert park officials to something they might have missed in reaching their conclusion. In fact, the public comment period has become a widely discredited measure of public sentiment because it has been susceptible to what critics call AstroTurf campaigns, the opposite of real grass-roots efforts, in which advocacy groups encourage their members to sign their names on form letters. A court decision in 1987 gave officials clearance to ignore mass mailings. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a ruling written by then Judge Kenneth W. Starr, said that a determination of a clean-water issue should not be based on the number of comments, most urging the Environmental Protection Agency to allow them to discharge pollutants into the water. ''The substantial-evidence standard has never been taken to mean that an agency rule-making is a democratic process by which the majority of commenters prevail by sheer weight of numbers,'' Judge Starr wrote. Has a comment period ever truly influenced a decision? Chris Wood, a senior adviser to the Forest Service chief in the Clinton administration, said that typical agency behavior is to ''develop the plan you want, announce a public comment period and then do what you want to do.''
		Posted Feb 23, 2009 12:08 am


	tarol	Re: Still No.
	Voted 10/10	True, you didn't vote on this or any other executive agency regulation. Can you imagine if you did? It would be incredibly inefficient to run a government if the people got to vote on every piece of legislation... But don't forget you did vote (I hope) for the people who pass or don't pass legislation like this, that is your members of Congress, those of the legislative branch. You did vote (I hope) for the President who often has the final say. And also don't forget the members of the judicial branch are often appointed by those you voted for and their job is often to decide if such regulations are legal and constitutional. That is how this government was set up, by the Constitution, into 3 branches that check and balance each other. Many think that's why this government of ours has survived for so long. So vote wisely, find out how your Congressmen stand on issues you hold dear like this one, and when you are asked to provide feedback to them or directly to the agency do so. Even if you aren't asked, write a letter or set up a meeting. I know for a fact that a person who does provide feedback to agencies like the Forest Service in an intelligent manner does have a voice, probably bigger than folks like you realize. That doesn't mean you'll get your way, as the agency is always looking to provide the greatest good to all people not just you, but there will often be a compromise based on your feedback.
		Posted Feb 24, 2009 9:30 am


	FortMental	Re: Still No.
	Hasn't voted	So...what's the point of collecting Public Comments that you've asked the public to submit? How can the Forest Service be so blasée about blowing off the very public they've been asked to serve? People vote on regulations and policy all the time; they're called referendums, and as far as I can tell, they're a pretty efficient way for people to have a say in public policy. I think it's more than fair to ask the Forest Service to consider the comments of thousands of people who can't otherwise travel to Washington to talk face to face with relevant administrators. It's easy for you to say, "set up a meeting" to provide feedback to impending legislation...I can't do that. I'm not a lobbyist.
		Posted Feb 24, 2009 4:15 pm


	tarol	Re: Still No.
	Voted 10/10	Referendums on ballots? Sure, those work in some cases, not so much on others (CA ban on hunting mountain lions is one I would put in the not so much category). And can you imagine how big the ballot would be every election if we got to vote on every law that governs our federal lands, not to mention every other law that governs every other aspect of everything our federal, state, and local governments do for us? Don't get me wrong, I like to vote, just like you apparently do, and I do whenever possible, but having everything on the ballot for your vote is just not realistic. That's why that one facet of our government does work well. That is, you vote for the people who create the laws. So in an indirect way you are voting for the laws. And public comments do work. I read the opinion article you posted but I don't agree because I see it working. I work at a ranger station front desk and frequently see average Joe's (ie people who live or recreate in the area) stop in and ask the friendly receptionist to talk to the district ranger about a manner that concerns them. I also frequently tell people who call the station where to send letters. And I often see the outcomes of these interactions and things do change. The power of the average person is much greater than you realize, probably more than a lobbyist actually. So I encourage you to try to call or stop in your local ranger station or park headquarters. Usually when something like a major rule or part of a land management plan is proposed there are several alternatives and which one is chosen is very much driven by public comments. Why would an agency not want the support of the majority of the public? What good would that honestly do? One case I've been following is the recent proposal of the Sequoia National Forest in designating OHV routes. There have been many public meetings to discuss the alternatives. The forest goes to a great effort to advertise these meetings and have them right in local communities so people don't have to go far. Ever been to one of these meetings? If not, I encourage you to go. Expect to hear a wide, very wide, range of opinions. You will find some folks agree with you, and some that disagree, and some with issues you've never even thought of. Anyway, they're very eye-opening. And I can guarantee that the Forest Supervisor on the Sequoia NF will make the best decision based on what comes out of those public meetings. Believe me, the Sequoia knows better than perhaps any other forest what happens if they don't take the public's voice into consideration. That is, they'll probably get sued, and then spend upteenth thousands and millions of dollars of your tax money to try and defend themselves, and then get told to do it all again. And then they're usually back to square one starting anew on something that they already spent 10 years on. I know first hand that employees like forest planners don't like to spend 10 years on a plan and then turn around and have to do it all again. And tax payers would, too, and thus not see their money wasted. Believe me, everyone would much rather get it right the first time. Or as right as possible, I should say, as an agency like a park or forest with their enormously difficult and some would say impossible mission to "preserve and protect" but also "provide for the enjoyment of people" isn't going to make everyone happy all of the time. For example, if land managers decide to open up more routes to OHV enthusiasts, well, the OHV'ers are happy. And local shops catering to these folks are happy (after all OHV'ers spend more money than most other types of recreationists.) But then the hikers and Spotted Owls aren't very happy with more ATV's and dirtbikes running around. But if you close more routes then the OHV people are pissed and the locals who made a decent living are pissed but the hikers and owls are happy. So what must the agencies do but try their best to find a compromise? In the end there will be some routes open for OHV'ers, some closed for hikers and owls. Anyway, here's some more info, and just one example of how you can let your voice be heard and how land management rules get made. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/projects/ohv_route_designation_strategy/index.html
		Posted Feb 24, 2009 11:30 pm

sopwith21	Immoral and Evil
Hasn't voted	Holding property hostage until the rightful owner makes a payoff is extortion and theft. Only government would do such and thing and then expect the victims to thank them for the privilege.
	Posted Feb 22, 2009 8:58 pm

Viewing: 41-57 of 57

« PREV 1 2 3 NEXT »