1) Public
land, public access
In
my opinion the biggest issue with recreation fees is that they
create a barrier for many U.S. citizens. The fixed-income
family as well as those unwilling to pay fees are denied access to
land that is theirs by birthright. No class of citizens should be
denied the harmless, non-consumptive use of land they pay taxes to manage. The poor are denied
enough in our society; being kept away from Nature and their
national heritage is unfair and unjust.
The
amount of a given fee should not be debated. That is not the point, any fee will deny
access to someone. The only way to keep access equal is to keep public access to
public land free -- as it always has been.
Colorado passed a
resolution against recreation fees that reads, "The fees imposed
by the FLREA are a regressive tax that places an undue burden on the
people living in rural areas adjacent to or surrounded by large areas
of federal land, as well as discriminating against lower-income and
working Americans by placing financial obstacles in the way of their
enjoyment of publicly owned land."
2) Opposition
to recreation fees and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA)
Opposition to
recreation fees does not fall along partisan lines. People from all
walks of life oppose recreation fees. State legislatures of states
like Idaho and Oregon, with lawmakers from both ends of
the spectrum, have come together to unanimously pass no-fee
resolutions.
It is interesting to
note that FLREA was introduced by Rep. Ralph Regula, a Republican
from Ohio with no public land in his district. Opposition to
recreation fees has been strong throughout the western U.S., where
the vast bulk of public land is located.
Some governments that have passed resolutions against recreation fees:
-State of Colorado
-State of California
-State of New
Hampshire
-State of Idaho
(unanimous)
-State of Oregon
(unanimous minus 1)
-State of Montana
-State of Alaska
-Pima County
-Numerous city and
county governments
3) FLREA passed
Congress with inadequate debate, input, or process
Note that when FLREA
became law it was not voted on separately in the House
of Representatives and was not introduced in, did not have hearings
in, and was not approved by the Senate, but instead was
attached to the omnibus spending bill, H.R. 4818, by the 108th Congress, as an appropriation rider.
"A law that
criminalizes access to public lands by the citizens who own them and
pay taxes for their support would never pass muster in an open public
debate. Slipping it in as an appropriations rider, by a congressman
with no federal public lands in his district, was a despicable abuse
of the legislative process." -- The late Robert Funkhouser
4) The
American Recreation Coalition, corporate involvement, and
privatization
“ARC members have
a very strong interest in fees at federal recreation sites and played
a key role in the creation of the National Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program.” -- Christine Jourdain, board of
directors of ARC
The American Recreation
Coalition has played a prime role in creating and pushing Fee Demo
and FLREA. The coalition is composed mostly of private corporations
that make money off public lands recreation.
Fees are a foot-in-the-door for privatized facilities such as
campgrounds, as well as creating a consumer based recreation
experience on public lands. Turning public lands into motorized,
developed playgrounds where Americans are used to spending money is
the key motivation behind ARC and other corporate involvement.
The Forest Service and
other agencies are forced to play into this juggernaut. Outsourcing
of management and privately run campgrounds and facilities are
already more common then you might think. What we're already seeing:
1) Public
facilities being privatized
2) Forest
recreation being commercialized
3) Recreation fees
increasing
4) Cheap labor
replacing USFS labor
5) Still more
concessionaires being solicited
Read this article as an
example of privatization.
The agencies themselves
are forced to run like a business to have sufficient income for
basic operations. Due to funding now coming from “customers”, the
Forest Service must treat its land like a product and
citizens as consumers. “Marketing” of public lands is increasing as Congressional funding fails to reach local public land managers. Fees are being created at new sites relentlessly, and fee
charges are certain to increase.
This is a list of
“sustaining members” of ARC:
American Council of
Snowmobile Associations
The Coleman Company
Family Motor Coach
Association
Good Sam Club
International
Snowmobile Manufacturers Association
Kampgrounds of America
National Association of
RV Parks and Campgrounds
National Forest
Recreation Association
National Marine
Manufacturers Association
National Park
Hospitality Association
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Recreation Vehicle
Dealers Association
Recreation Vehicle
Industry Association
ReserveAmerica
SGMA International
The Walt Disney Company
Recreation fees create a
private enterprise model on public lands. We are already seeing the
Forest Service treating the public as consumers (not citizens) and
the land as a product (and not our Natural heritage).
Environmentalists should especially be concerned as recreation is
seen as the new extractive industry on public lands and
public/private partnerships are part of the fee plan. Behind Fee Demo
and FLREA are mostly corporations pushing a motorized, playground
future for our public lands.
5) Nature
as commodity
If
nothing else is sacred and protected from commercialization, let wild Nature be. It is a place where we should be able to get
away from our hectic world of motors, advertising, and dare I say,
paying for everything.
6) User fees promote
law-enforcement oriented rangers, not helpful, knowledgeable,
friendly rangers
This change I've
seen with my own eyes. Officials are now hired to enforce fees and
be the enemy of the public, not help facilitate an enjoyable
or educational experience.
7) User fees promote
more development and regulation
Paying users want
infrastructure. Managers want customers. It puts our land in
self-promoting loop of development and commercialization.
Do you enjoy an
undeveloped public lands experience? Do you want the ability to use your land
without worrying about breaking one of numerous petty regulations
or not having payed the proper fees? If so, you will likely be out of luck in the
user-fee future of public lands.
8) Public lands
management is relatively cheap
Public lands
recreation management funding from the U.S. Treasury is a relatively tiny
cost compared to other government expenses. |
