In 1993, John Baden, President of the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment (FREE), laid out the case for charging the American public for the right to access their federally managed public lands. Amongst his many arguments he wrote:

When our national forests give away recreation, private managers cannot compete. But when national forests charge fees, private land may open up to recreation, also for a fee.

In 1996, Baden and other recreation fee champions got their way. With the  passage of fee-demo, a walk in public woods was no longer free and an important threshold was crossed.

In today's press appears an article under the headline "Potlatch Corp. to charge fees for access to N. Idaho forests." The article reads in part:

Potlatch, based in Spokane, Wash., owns almost 670,000 acres that the company says draws 200,000 visitor-use days each year from hikers, birdwatchers, hunters, anglers and trail riders. "They've all used Potlatch land without a fee and minimal restrictions," Matt Van Vleet, public affairs manager for Potlatch's western region, told The Spokesman-Review of Spokane. But "the future is not going to be like the past."

The future is not going to be like the past. We're riding upon a hidden track and things are likely to get worse. Much worse.

Why do I say this? Because the future that is unfolding today was planned two of more decades ago. I've poured over the blueprints and have done my best to share what I've learned. Today's news is not news. It is merely an unfolding.

Scott 

--- begin quoted ---

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
October 3, 2006
Potlatch Corp. to charge fees for access to N. Idaho forests

GENESEE, Idaho -- Potlatch Corp., Idaho's largest private landowner, plans to start charging for recreational use of its land, an official of the timber company says.

Potlatch, based in Spokane, Wash., owns almost 670,000 acres that the company says draws 200,000 visitor-use days each year from hikers, birdwatchers, hunters, anglers and trail riders.

"They've all used Potlatch land without a fee and minimal restrictions," Matt Van Vleet, public affairs manager for Potlatch's western region, told The Spokesman-Review of Spokane. But "the future is not going to be like the past."

Details are expected to be released later this year. Some ideas being considered include selling annual permits to people who drive vehicles onto the company's property, selling hunting licenses, and charging camping fees for high-use areas.

Dick McEwan has hunted game on the company's lands for more than 30 years.

"We've gotten kind of spoiled, we're so accustomed to using their lands," said McEwan, a retired forester. "I have fears of where it can lead to. It can lead to the point where the common people can't get to it, and I hate to see that happen."

The company's Idaho land contains 5,000 miles of forest roads, popular with trail riders. Alex Irby is a member of an ATV group that twice a year has all-day rides through the company's land.

He said most of the group's 100 members will pay the fee to be able to ride past groves of ancient cedars and old fire lookouts.

"Nothing's free anymore," Irby said. "We have to respect and protect the land, and pay, if that's what it costs."

Van Vleet said the fees will help pay to combat vandalism. But he said the company also expects to make money.

"The program is focused on being a profit-maker," Van Vleet said.

The company owns land in Minnesota and Arkansas as well, where it brings in more than $1 million annually in user-fee programs.

Other timber companies also charge user fees. Inland Empire Paper Co., began charging five years ago for access to 115,000 acres in Washington and Idaho. An annual permit costs $50.

Comments (2) >>

Sloan said:

So, the corporate cronies push the fees on public lands to make their private better able to turn a profit. If it wasn't so callous and evil, I'd say it was a brilliant strategy. Bastards.

October 03, 2006

Scott said:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/delpf/articles/delpf13p143.htm A Strategy for Restoring America's National Parks, Fretwell*, and Holly Lippke, Michael J. Podolsky**. 13 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 143-186 (2003). The example of International Paper, one of the largest timber producers in the United States, illustrates the obstacles posed by below-cost recreation on federal lands. It varies the management of its timber holdings depending on whether or not those holdings are surrounded by federal recreation land. In Arkansas, Louisiana, and [*pg 156] Texas, where the company is surrounded by private land, International Paper encourages wildlife and outdoor recreation. Although the company has allowed access to hunters and campers for many years, it began to aggressively market its land to hunting clubs, individual hunters, and family campers in 1983. By 1986, recreation revenues had reached $2 million, which amounted to 25 percent of International Paper's total profits in the region. By 1999, recreation revenues from the region totaled $5 million. As proceeds from recreation increased, the company's managers deliberately made the land more attractive to its visitors. Trees are now left standing for wild-animal corridors, age diversity in the forests is maintained to support more wildlife variety, and buffers are preserved along watersheds and streambeds. Nearly two-thirds of the company's six million acres are managed for recreation across the nation. In the Pacific Northwest, however, where International Paper recently sold most of its holdings, none of the company's land was managed for recreation. The federal government owns nearly half of all lands in the Pacific Northwest, and most of International Paper's holdings were surrounded by national forest. Because hunting and camping are mostly free on Forest Service lands, the company could not earn from hunters and campers revenues necessary to cover its costs. As a result, regional managers paid little or no attention to recreational values and lacked incentive to improve and protect wildlife habitat. "Free" recreation on federal land discourages others from providing it. * Holly Lippke Fretwell is a Research Associate with the Political Economy Research Center, 502 South 19th Avenue, Suite 211, Bozeman, MT 59718. She has a MS in resource economics from Montana State University. This article draws on Holly Lippke Fretwell, Paying to Play: The Fee Demonstration Program, PERC POLICY SERIES, December 1999. ** Michael J. Podolsky is a law clerk for the Honorable David A. Katz of the Northern District of Ohio. He was a ROE Fellow with the Political Economy Research Center and a graduate of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and has a Ph.D. in Energy and Environmental Management and Policy from the University of Pennsylvania

October 03, 2006

Write comment

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment