-or GOOGLE our full site -

GOOGLE the www
GOOGLE this website

Heads Up!

Wild Wilderness believes that America's public recreation lands are a national treasure that must be financially supported by the American people and held in public ownership as a legacy for future generations

BLOG CONTENT

OLDER CONTENT

Administrative Login






Lost Password?
HOME arrow - Land management arrow Recreation Pass and Closures Unwelcome
Recreation Pass and Closures Unwelcome
Written by Scott Silver   
Monday, 11 December 2006

In recent weeks, dramatically shifting federal recreation policies have begun collapsing all at once.  Efforts of the land management agencies and their private sector partners to concentrate opportunities for outdoor recreation into areas where "experiences" could be sold to PAYING CUSTOMERS are meeting with increasing resistance.  Having been pushed too far by the magnitude, rapidity, insensitivity and overt greed of these changes, the recreating public and key members of Government are pushing back.

Pasted below how the generally conservative, recreation industry-friendly, Federal Parks and Recreation newsletter described that situation today. If anything, opposition the new $80 public lands access pass and associated efforts to shutter recreation sites is even greater than this article suggests!

Scott

PS...the article ends with a gratuitous plug for "a free volunteer pass". That so-called "free" annual access pass is available only to persons who have already contributed 500 hours of free volunteer labor.

--- begin quoted ---

Source: Federal Parks & Recreation Bulletin  #11:

December 11, 2006
ADMINISTRATION SETS NEW $80 FED LAND FEE; FS CLOSURES FAULTED


At the bidding of Congress the Bush administration December 5 established one comprehensive $80 annual passport for entry to developed park and rec sites managed by five federal agencies.

Influential western Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) immediately protested. "I had opposed the recreation fee being expanded beyond the national parks and now my worst fears are being realized - higher fees with no guarantee that the money is going back to the site being impacted," said Thomas, who chaired the Senate subcommittee on National Parks through last week.

He added, "My concerns about the price of the pass are echoed in a study conducted by the University of Wyoming, which showed very little tolerance for a pass priced above $70.  If there's a budget problem in our land management agencies, let's get to the root of it - address it head on - and not put budget shortfalls on the backs of recreational visitors."

Other pass critics predicted the fee was so high it would reduce visitation.  "They are going to price people out of visiting the parks," said Robert Funkhouser, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition.  He said the $80 price is in all likelihood just an opening bid.  "I imagine they will come in soft and hit hard later," he said.

Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh defended the pass.  "Most people are excited about it," he said.  "It allows them to pay one time and they can go all over the country and visit parks and forests."  The feds also note that Parks Canada charges $140 for a comparable pass.

In a related federal land recreation issue, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont) complained November 28 that the Forest Service was closing campgrounds without first consulting the public.  Baucus's complaint drew a promise from the Forest Service to consult the public.  (Baucus matters because he will chair the Senate Finance Committee next year and oversee all tax legislation.)

"I'm not going to let the Forest Service make decisions about our campgrounds without full public input and scrutiny," Baucus said.  "Limiting access to our public lands for hunting, fishing and camping is something Montanans don't take lightly."

The Forest Service is currently preparing recreation site facility master plans on all its 219 forests to determine which recreation sites are economically practical and justify staying open. The agency has completed plans on 44 forests and intends to complete plans on another 175 forests by the end of 2007.

Baucus, afraid the Forest Service would make decisions to close dozens of campgrounds in Montana before taking public input, asked Kimbell for public hearings in each of the nine Montana national forests.

"Montanans must have opportunities to be involved in decisions that affect developed recreation areas, so that the result takes into account a wide variety of responsible uses," he wrote Kimbell.

The Forest Service sent a memo to the field October 12 that calls for increased public participation, but it does not mandate public input before initial decisions are made.

The memo, from Deputy Chief for the National Forest System Joel D. Holtrop, advises forests that are beginning to write facility master plans: "A commitment to share the initial results of analysis and invite discussion of alternative ways of operating sites and building new partnerships is required."

Holtrop also said that forests that are already well along in writing facility master plans must obtain public input. "In some cases, this may mean re-engaging the public in this process," he said.  "In all cases, the public must be involved in setting priorities for maintaining developed recreational sites on the national forests."

Funkhouser of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition maintains that the Forest Service will still have made crucial decisions on which facilities to keep open and which to close before public hearings are held. "Once the planning is completed decisions to close campgrounds are already made before the public is involved," he said.

But Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh, citing the Holtrop memo, disputed that assertion.  "We are having total public comment," he said. "Decisions have not been made before the public is involved."

Withal Funkhouser and other critics want the new Democratic Congress to hold hearings next year on federal lands recreation policy, particularly the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (PL 108-447 of Dec. 8, 2004) that authorized the new America the Beautiful Passport.

The new passport will provide access to the National Park System, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation.  It will replace the Golden Eagle, Golden Age and Golden Access Passports.  Those passports will remain valid until they expire.

The new system will actually offer four passes - (1) the $80 annual passport, (2) a $10 senior lifetime pass for citizens over 62, (3) a free lifetime pass for citizens with disabilities and (4) a free volunteer pass.

The passes may be obtained beginning in January at http://store.usgs.gov/pass and www.recreation.gov.

Comments (1) >>

Sabattis said:

  Its amazing how much distortion is occurring on this issue. There is no Park, Forest, or other public land setting an $80 admission fee. The $80 fee is for unlimited admission for an entire year to all federal lands. Under the current system, some heavy users paying only $50 for a National Parks Pass often get a great value, depending on how many Parks they visit. This is simply reducing the size of that deal. As the article notes, a comparable pass in Canada is $140 - and it has hardly been the end of the world up there.
December 12, 2006
Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley
Smiley


Write the displayed characters


 
v12.jpgtest

Fair Use Notice:    This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.