ILLEGAL FEE PROGRAM INVADES WYOMING

by **Buz Groshong** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:19 pm

Aaron Johnson wrote:Unfortunately, the political bullshit comes with it. I try to keep the focus on the basics and avoid the rest. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I do appreciate your point. If it's anything I hate, it's politics. So, to me, when I see something wrong, I do what I can with what tools and talents I have to TRY to make it right. Because it's wrong.

I fully support fees to national parks. To simply charge a fee at a trailhead because it's popular is an obvious money grab. There are rules these business intersts must follow, including the FS, before a fee site is established, and after it's established. This is rarely the case. It's a scam.

Well, I learn something every day. I did not know that about Shenadoah Park. However, it is a NATIONAL PARK and I don't have a problem with a fee in that situation, because the fee buys a certain experience the visitor is expecting, as in whatever amenities the Park offers. If the Park does not deliver, well, that's another issue, but it's clearly wrong. Again, Park's aren't the issue here.

1. The political bullshit started when you called the fee "illegal." Since no court has found that to be the case, it's merely your political view.

2. Whether it is a National Park or National Forest makes little difference to me. Both provide outdoor recreation opportunities and both provide facilities. If National Forests shouldn't charge for their facilities, then National Parks shouldn't either.

3. Yes the trailhead in question is popular (I've actually been there). That means that it should get trash pickup and should have some decent restrooms (it's a long way to the nearest town). The trailhead also has a paved entrance road and parking lot and picnic tables. Those things cost money and someone has to pay for them - doesn't mean that it has to be from a use fee, but the law does allow a fee where certain amenities are provided.

4. The law is a bit unclear in regard to situations like the trailhead in question, but the intent seems clear to me. The law says that they can only charge when certain amenities are provided and can't charge a fee just for a trailhead. The wording may be a bit unclear, but it seems to be saying that they can't charge for unimproved trailheads, but can charge when the required amenities are provided, as they are in this case. The fee is based on the availability of facilities, not on their use. Just because you choose not to use some of the amenities provided, that does not exempt you from the fee. You don't get a discount at the movie theater for not using the rest room and you shouldn't at a National Forest either.

5. Sounds like they outsourced the trash pickup, maintenance, and such - not unusual. The government often does this sort of thing. They say that it is more efficient. Services can end up getting poorly done at high expense due to corruption (ask Halliburton about this). If there is corruption involved in the contracts that are supposed to be paid out of this fee, that's another issue entirely - doesn't make the fee illegal.

6. The entrance fee at Shenandoah Park was originally ($0.50 back then) supposed to pay for the road, not any "park experience." Now it's just an entrance fee, same as most other National Parks. You are supposed to pay it if you hike in.

by **Buz Groshong** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:16 pm

Gary Schenk wrote:The fees are used to line the pockets of the big timber companies. The forest service use these fees to subsidize infrastructure for the harvesting of lumber, and not incidentally more or less sell off our trees for next to nothing.

I have no problem with careful harvesting of trees, it is needed. But Weyerhauser and the rest make enough money that they don't need mine.

Don't encourage them. Don't buy the pass, and don't pay the "notice of non-compliance." Those notices recycle quite nicely, and you can help save a tree!

You won't save trees by not buying the pass or paying the fees. The forest service was selling timber at a loss, long before the "fee demonstration" thing came a long.

by **Aaron Johnson** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:55 pm

Great discussion and input from everyone. I appreciate opposing views being presented as well. Great stuff. I'll try to get back to this later. Thanks everyone for participating.

by **KBenzar** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:02 am

I have just checked in to this forum thread thanks to Aaron bringing it to my attention. I have to say how impressed I am with the high level of discussion, the intelligent observations, and especially the civil tone. Summit Posters are obviously a CLASS ACT!

Aaron has provided in earlier posts many of my responses to points that have been raised so I will not repeat those. The latest news from the Bighorn National Forest is that they have extended the comment period on the West Tensleep Trailhead fee until the end of March so please don't just share your thoughts here, send them along to the District Ranger. Complete information about how to comment is posted at www.westernslopenofee.org Follow the link from the home page.

We are providing there also a webpage with all the public comments that have been sent in that the authors have shared with us, and they are worth reading. It also includes the Federal Register notices published by the Forest, the Forest's recent press release, and some articles out of the local press. For those who want to know all about the West Tensleep Trailhead fee, it's there.

Following is the official comment I sent in on Monday on behalf of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition, detailing our objections to the fee proposal.

The Standard Amenity Recreation Fee you are proposing to charge at the West Tensleep Trailhead parking lot is both unwise and non-compliant with federal law. The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition opposes implementation of this fee.
Authorization for Standard Amenity Fees is found in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6802 et seq) It begins:
(f) Standard Amenity Recreation Fee-
Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a standard amenity recreation fee. . .
The limitations at subsection (d) say:
(d) Limitations on Recreation Fees
(1) PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES- The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:
(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.
(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.
(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.
(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.
(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).
The West Tensleep Trailhead fee would not be in compliance with these prohibitions because it would be:
· a fee for parking (since it applies only to vehicles parked in the parking lot);
· a fee for general access (to the Cloud Peak Wilderness and other backcountry);
· a fee for a dispersed area (the very definition of Wilderness);
· a fee for hiking/horseback riding through federal land where no facilities exist;
· a fee for those camping in the Wilderness with no facilities or services.
The limiting language at 16 U.S.C. 6802(d) was put in the FLREA by the House Resources Committee specifically to address the complaints they had heard loud and clear, on the Sawtoooth National Forest and elsewhere, that people will not stand for being charged a fee just to go for a walk in the woods.
In the press release issued at the time the bill passed committee, Representative Greg Walden, a member of the committee, said:
“When a hiker parks on the side of the road and ventures onto an unmanaged trail with no amenities along the way, they should certainly not have to pay.”
At the time FLREA was enacted its chief sponsor, Representative Ralph Regula, issued a press release that said:
“As passed by Congress, H.R. 3283 would limit the recreation fee authorization on the land management agencies. No fees may be charged for the following: solely for parking, picnicking, horseback riding through, general access, dispersed areas with low or no investments, for persons passing through an area, camping at undeveloped sites, overlooks, public roads or highways, private roads, hunting or fishing, and official business.”
The intent of Congress was clear: no fee to walk in the woods. The Forest Service has chosen a contorted interpretation of this clear intent that somehow concludes that a trailhead is a destination in and of itself, not an access point to dispersed backcountry.
People don’t go to the West Tensleep Trailhead—or any other trailhead—to use the toilet or empty their trash; they go there to take a walk in the woods. That is what you would be charging them for, and the law prohibits that. It doesn’t matter what “amenities” you put there; 16 U.S.C. 6802(d) overrides the “six amenities” requirement.
I am deeply concerned about your recent press release with the quote attributed to District Ranger Mark Booth,
“My hope, if we do implement a fee is that it does reduce the concentration of users and the associated impacts, in the West Tensleep corridor both inside and outside of the Cloud Peak Wilderness.”
This is in direct contradiction to the Forest Service’s many assurances to Congress over more than a decade that recreation fees will not be used to limit or control use. Using money to control who does and does not get to go for a walk in the woods is fundamentally at odds with American principles of equality and fair play. The opportunity to experience healthy outdoor activity in a wild setting should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford to pay to play. If the Cloud Peak Wilderness or the West Tensleep corridor are receiving more visitors than the resources can support there are better and more equitable ways to protect them such as a system of limited, but free, permits.
Charging a fee on a per-vehicle per-visit basis, as you propose, would be an enforcement nightmare and a regressive tax on local residents. It would require multiple patrols per day to determine which vehicles have been parked and for how long. Someone who parks on Saturday and again on Sunday for day uses (most likely to be a local resident) would owe $20, while someone parked for a week-long backcountry trip would owe half as much. That’s not fair.
You cite deferred maintenance of $20,000 as if that’s a large sum, but it’s less than the typical cost of a new toilet. With the more than 60% increase in appropriated funding for the Forest Service since 2000, it should be possible fund that relatively trivial amount from congressional appropriations. You follow your statement about the needed deferred maintenance by saying that the proposed fee revenue would be spent for routine operations and to buy the additional amenities that you think will qualify you legally to impose the fee. If that is the case then the fee revenue will have no impact on your deferred maintenance.
Asking the public to pay a fee so that you can purchase the amenities required in order to charge a fee is a circular argument, and there is no public benefit to it.
Imposing an access/parking fee at this location will create more problems than it solves. People will park elsewhere to avoid the fee and resource damage will increase and spread out to places that are now pristine. The fee will make people angry and some of them will act out, unwisely but inevitably, in the form of vandalism. People will just stay away and the local economy will suffer because of it.
There are much better, more positive and collaborative ways to address your management concerns, which I'm sure are real. I urge you to explore those alternatives and to cancel your proposal to charge a fee at West Tensleep Trailhead.

by **KBenzar** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:11 am

One short additional observation to those who think paying fees for access to wild undeveloped country is ok.

In keeping with the high tone of this forum I will first say that you have a right to your opinion, but in this country such issues as public lands policy are supposed to be set by the people, acting through our elected officials in Congress. One would hope the process would be open and transparent but it ain't.

Both Fee Demo and the current fee law were passed as riders on appropriations bills, and never saw the light of day on the floor of either the House or Senate. Never were voted on on their own merits. Instead they were buried in 3,000 page must-pass bills chock full of earmarks and pork.

I would welcome an open public, nationwide debate about these issues and let the best man win, but we've never been given the opportunity. For me, the "user should pay" argument butts right up against the concept of Public Benefit. If something is of Public Benefit, then in my mind it is a right and proper recipient of public funding, even by individuals who don't use it directly. Examples are public libraries, public schools, fire departments, FEMA. A society run entirely on the principle of "user pays" would charge a toddler 50 cents to check out a Dr Suess book, households without school-age children would not pay school taxes, the dispatcher would want your credit card number before sending a fire truck, and the victims of a disaster would have to fund their own relief efforts.

There is a line beyond which the user should pay, and I welcome an open and honest debate about where it should be drawn. Me, I don't think anyone should have to pay for access to the outdoors in wild undeveloped places on publicly owned lands.

by **dskoon** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:50 am

Right to that. I always thought our taxes already paid for the right to use the land. . .
Still, why then does the NPS. charge an access fee? Shouldn't we have the same right to access there as on NFS. lands?

by **Day Hiker** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:13 am

KBenzar wrote:. . .

There is a line beyond which the user should pay, and I welcome an open and honest debate about where it should be drawn. Me, I don't think anyone should have to pay for access to the outdoors in wild undeveloped places on publicly owned lands.

dskoon wrote:Right to that. I always thought our taxes already paid for the right to use the land. . .
Still, why then does the NPS. charge an access fee? Shouldn't we have the same right to access there as on NFS. lands?

It sounds to me like the difference is developed versus undeveloped.

I am in favor of nominal fees for National Parks. Imagine if there were no fee, and only the U.S. taxpayers paid for the improvements at Grand Canyon, while 90% of the visitors seem to be from Germany or France. With the fees, the foreign tourists get to share the bill. :lol:

But undeveloped public lands should have no access fees. Period.

by **mconnell** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:39 pm

Dingus Milktoast wrote:The Fed OWNS the land. You have to understand this. You, me, and Woodie Guthrie's descendants... it ain't OUR LAND.

You act as though the federal government is an independent group that can do what they want. The fed is us or, more specifically, a couple of us hired to work in our interest. Since the federal government really is just a select few of us, what they "own" is ours.

by **Buz Groshong** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:41 pm

KBenzar wrote:One would hope the process would be open and transparent but it ain't.

Both Fee Demo and the current fee law were passed as riders on appropriations bills, and never saw the light of day on the floor of either the House or Senate. Never were voted on on their own merits. Instead they were buried in 3,000 page must-pass bills chock full of earmarks and pork.

This is the way Congress works. Robert's Rules of Order require that any amendment to a motion be germaine to the motion, but Congress doesn't go by Robert's Rules of Order. They have their own rules with no such restriction. It did though, see the light of day. It must have been published in the Congressional Record, and was available to those who voted on the measure. It may have been burried in 3,000 pages, but each Senator and Representative has staff members responsible for pointing out such things to them. So, you can't let them off the hook - they did know about it and did pass it.

You also quote:

(1) PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES- The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:
(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.
(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.
(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.
(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.
(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).
The West Tensleep Trailhead fee would not be in compliance with these prohibitions because it would be:
· a fee for parking (since it applies only to vehicles parked in the parking lot);
· a fee for general access (to the Cloud Peak Wilderness and other backcountry);
· a fee for a dispersed area (the very definition of Wilderness);
· a fee for hiking/horseback riding through federal land where no facilities exist;
· a fee for those camping in the Wilderness with no facilities or services.

The trailhead in question is not "along roads or trailsides" so it doesn't qualify for the exemption under (A).

The "trailhead" in question is actually a day use area with a parking lot, a lake, picnic tables, rest rooms, trash cans, etc. so it doesn't qualify for the exemption under (B) or (C). The fee isn't for "general access" it is for the use of the facilities, which includes the parking lot. Whether you choose to use facilities other than the parking lot, is not the question - you either buy the package or you get nothing. Any reasonable person would expect them to charge that way; after all they can't very well monitor whether or not you used the rest rooms or picnic tables, can they?

It's at the end of the road, so you can't "drive through," and parking at the trailhead to hike doesn't constitute "hiking through" so it doesn't qualify for exemption under (D).

The fee isn't for camping, so it doesn't qualify for exemption under (E).

by **mrh** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:21 pm

KBenzar, I applaud your efforts and involvement. But in addition to some things Buz points out, you are going to have a problem with this one:

· a fee for a dispersed area (the very definition of Wilderness)

Dispersed area is a formal definition and it doesn't apply to wilderness. When you are driving down a forest road and see a little pull off where you can park and have a picnic or throw a tent up you are using a dispersed area. There are no developments or amenities at all.

by **D8S** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:25 pm

Buz wrote
“The fee isn't for "general access" it is for the use of the facilities, which includes the parking lot. Whether you choose to use facilities other than the parking lot, is not the question - you either buy the package or you get nothing.”

Look at it this way. If facilities and services are popcorn, and you’re sitting in front of a movie theater selling popcorn, then you’re selling popcorn. But if you won’t let anyone enter the theater (wilderness) until they buy $10 worth of popcorn, you’re not selling popcorn anymore.

Buz wrote
“Any reasonable person would expect them to charge that way; after all they can't very well monitor whether or not you used the rest rooms or picnic tables, can they?”

IMO, a reasonable person would expect them to recognize the difficulty of differentiating between persons accessing the wilderness and those visiting for the amenities, and continue to fund both with their appropriated dollars. Congress clearly tied the fees not to the availability of, not to the presence of, but to the use of both facilities and services. Considering the controversial nature of the program, one would think the Forest Service would want to adopt a more conscientious and conservative approach to implementation.

Buz wrote
“It's at the end of the road, so you can't "drive through," and parking at the trailhead to hike doesn't constitute "hiking through" so it doesn't qualify for exemption under (D).” (the law says "For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.")

The law makes it clear that visitors are not limited to a single mode of travel. For example, the law states that a person can drive through, walk through, horseback ride through, or hike through. Nothing in the law suggests that visitors are limited to any single mode of travel. For example, a person can drive through federal recreation lands to a trailhead, park their vehicle and continue through the federal recreation lands without paying as long as they don’t use both the facilities and services. Congress clearly tied the fees not to the availability of, not to the presence of, but to the use of both facilities and services, at the same time promising that visitors would not need to pay simply for passing through a developed recreation site on their way to somewhere else.

Buz, (and others) GREAT comments. You’ve taught me more about the law than I knew before, and I appreciate it. Thanks for the great (and amazingly civil) discussion.

Dave

by **mconnell** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:56 pm

Dingus Milktoast wrote:
mconnell wrote:
Dingus Milktoast wrote:The Fed OWNS the land. You have to understand this. You, me, and Woodie Guthrie's descendants... it ain't OUR LAND.

You act as though the federal government is an independent group that can do what they want.

They can.

Which means that the Constitution is completely meaningless since the government doesn't have to follow it. Citizens are just here to serve the ruling branch? I think you are missing the point of a representative government.

by **Buz Groshong** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:49 pm

D8S wrote:IMO, a reasonable person would expect them to recognize the difficulty of differentiating between persons accessing the wilderness and those visiting for the amenities, and continue to fund both with their appropriated dollars. Congress clearly tied the fees not to the availability of, not to the presence of, but to the use of both facilities and services. Considering the controversial nature of the program, one would think the Forest Service would want to adopt a more conscientious and conservative approach to implementation.

Actually it's not clear. The law is not that clear as to whether it is talking about the availability of services or the use of services. Read it (16USC6802: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc16.wais&start=16786205&SIZE=12758&TYPE=TEXT) and you will see what I mean. To me, it seems to be talking about the availability of services, but others would disagree; it's really up to the courts to decide, not to you and me.

Note the following:

(b) Basis for recreation fees

Recreation fees shall be established in a manner consistent with the
following criteria:
(1) The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with
the benefits and services provided to the visitor.

Note that it says "provided to" rather than "used by."

Also note:

Standard amenity recreation fee

Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a
standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and
waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the
Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service, but only at the following:
(1) A National Conservation Area.
(2) A National Volcanic Monument.
(3) A destination visitor or interpretive center that provides a
broad range of interpretive services, programs, and media.
(4) An area--
(A) that provides significant opportunities for outdoor
recreation;
(B) that has substantial Federal investments;
(C) where fees can be efficiently collected; and
(D) that contains all of the following amenities:
(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services.

I don't know about the security services, but I believe the trailhead in question does provide all of the other amenities.

by **dskoon** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:54 pm

Dunno, still dunno about all this.
What bothers me, is that not so long ago, there were no fees for parking at a trailhead, etc. I worked for the forest circus at one time, and yep, about the only fees charged were for campgrounds. Didn't this shit come about in the late 90's? Why? When I worked for the FS. and there were no fees for said trailheads, the Recreation division of the FS. was constantly getting cut. No money. Some of these services, cleaning restrooms, etc. etc. began to be contracted out to private co's. And, these were at campgrounds, not undeveloped trailheads. Now, there's probably less money for all of it, even though our taxes once covered it.
I tend to believe some of the posters who are getting at the privatization of all these(our) resources. Next thing you know there will be little shops set-up at the trailheads, or, a few years from now, that same measly $5 could easily be ten or twenty. . . Then what? Just keep payin'?
By the way Dayhiker, nice distinction between the two, you pointed out.

by **D8S** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:43 pm

Buz, DMT, FM, and really everyone, again, fantastic comments. Thanks for making me take another look at the issue.

DSKoon, the FS recreation appropriation is up about 70% in the last decade, well above the rate of inflation, and they also just received $650 million (about $4.2 million per forest) in stimulus funding. Its really not a funding issue.

Buz wrote/quoted;
(1) The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with
the benefits and services provided to the visitor.

IMO, the important distinction is the word “amount” This section isn’t talking about where a fee can be charged, but whether to charge $1 or $20. IMO, the law makes it pretty clear.

Buz wrote:
Actually it's not clear. The law is not that clear as to whether it is talking about the availability of services or the use of services

16 USC 6802 (d)(1)(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services. (emphasis added) When I read the law as a whole, it tells me that fees are required if we use the facilities and Services, and that the amount of the fee is dependent upon what facilities and services are available.

I don't see a conflict in the law.

Getting back to the basics, the issue can and does encompass most everybody’s posts. In other words, DMT and FM are both right.

This started in 1996 when then congressman Ralph Regula of Ohio attached the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program onto the appropriations bill. He extended it twice more in the same manner.

Set to expire at the end of 2004, and with Senate Bill 1107 threatening to end most fee authority on Forest Service and BLM lands, Congressman Regula attached the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) onto the appropriations bill. While probably not what fee Proponents wanted, and certainly not what fee Opponents wanted, compared to the earlier legislation it certainly restricted the Forest Service’s ability to charge fees, and those restrictions were fought hard for by members of the public. In that sense, I disagree with DMT that our input stops at the polling booth. We have a participatory form of Government. If you don’t participate, you get what everyone else gives you.

Considering the new restrictions, you would think that the Forest Service would have had to eliminate fees in areas where it had collection authority under the previous fee program. But it didn’t happen.

Its important to remember that it was public outcry that got Congress (as Dingus pointed out, Congress has the authority to authorize and repeal fee authority, and as KBenzar pointed out they did so) to limit the Forest Service’s fee authority. As KBenzar also pointed out, its those limitations that are at issue at the West Tensleep trailhead.

The law is not perfect. There are plenty of provisions in it that I don’t like, but whether I like it or not, and whether the Forest Service likes it or not, the law is the law. The Forest Service expects me to obey the law, and I expect it to do the same. The Forest Service seems to believe that if it can justify its position through artful argument, however distorted, it is entitled to act as if that position were law. I (and many others) reasonably disagree.

There are two ways to look at the restrictions in the law. The Forest Service tends to look at the six amenities as once they install them they can charge a fee. But it makes just as much sense to look at the six amenities as a picture of what a fee site should look like. What does a site that has designated, developed parking, a permanent toilet, a permanent trash receptacle (not just a trash can), picnic tables, an interpretive sign, and enough Forest Service presence to provide actual security, look like?

When I read that, I understand that the area is far more developed than a trailhead, even if the trailhead happens to have those amenities. (or the Forest Service installs them in order to collect the fees) Reinforcing this is the requirement that the area have substantial federal investment. For an agency with an appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars, a $30,000 outhouse, $500 interpretive sign, $1000 picnic table and a $500 trash can isn’t substantial. My understanding is reinforced by the other prohibitions in the law, including no charges for general access, areas with low or no investment, no charges just for parking, no charging for overlooks (no matter how much was invested there), and travel through areas federal recreation lands (no matter how developed) without using the facilities and services.

In other words, if you’re there to use the facilities at a highly developed recreation site, you should pay. If it’s an area where people typically transition to wilderness travel, you shouldn’t be required to.

Its clear to me that Congress responded to public outcry and restricted the Forest Service’s fee authority. The point here is the Forest Service needs to obey the law and the restrictions therein. And, IMO, the West Tensleep proposal does not meet the criteria Congress mandated must be present before the Forest Service could implement a Standard Amenity Fee.

The FLREA is very amenity oriented. The fees proposed are standard amenity fees. If you read the law, it becomes clear that the Forest Service should be charging only for amenities, not for general access. As pointed out in my previous post, if you won’t let anyone pass through without buying popcorn, you’re not charging for the amenities, but for the access to the area beyond.

One of my biggest complaints with the Forest Service’s implementation of the FLREA is that we the people fought long and hard to limit the Forest Service’s fee authority, and Congress responded and wrote some of those restrictions into law. But the Forest Service acts as if those restrictions don't really mean anything. I think even DMT will agree that Congress had the right to limit fee authority, and they did. I must disagree with DMT that our input stops after we cast our ballot.

While perhaps old and out of shape, (sort of like this poster) S 868 isn’t dead, and calling your Senators could reasonably revive it. Its definitely worth the call.

Thanks all.

Dave

ILLEGAL FEE PROGRAM INVADES WYOMING

From the Western Slope No Fee Coalition

More from the Western Slope No Fee Coalition

Re: More from the Western Slope No Fee Coalition

Who is online