Socio-economic and Ecological Implications

History

For years, the Forest Service has been prohibited by law from charging fair market value for certain goods and services. According to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 (PL 88-578), "the Forest Service can charge fees only for the use of 1) boat launching facilities that offer services such as mechanical or hydraulic boat lifts and 2) campgrounds that offer certain amenities such as toilet facilities, drinking water, refuse containers and tent or trailer spaces," (US GAO. 1998. Forest Service Barriers to Generating Revenue or Reducing Costs. GAO/RCED-98-58).

This legal mandate effectively prevented the privatization, motorization and commercialization of the National Forests by making it difficult for private industry to make a profit from recreation. In the 1980's, Congress began cutting recreation funding on public lands in order to create an economic crisis that could only be solved through renewed appropriations or private funding. According to Chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee Frank Murkowski, "To understand what is possible, we need only look to the Forest Service. In the first half of the 1980's, budget cutbacks forced the closure of many Forest campgrounds and reduced seasons of operation at virtually all others. Beginning in 1987, the agency initiated a program to replace its direct campground management with concessioned operations. In 1996, 70% of all camping in the Forests occurred at concessioned campgrounds..." (statement of Murkowski re: American Outdoors Initiative).

In 1996, The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (PL 104-134), as extended by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (PL 104-208), directed "the Forest Service and three other federal land management agencies to test the collection, retention, and reinvestment of new entrance and user fees for recreation at a variety of sites," (US GAO. 1998. Forest Service Barriers to Generating Revenue or Reducing Costs. GAO/RCED-98-58). This legal change made it possible for the Forest Service to seek programmatic funding through user fees and public/private partnerships. According to the 1998 Forest Service report, A Strategy for Recreation, (USDA Forest Service. 1998. A Strategy for Recreation. Washington DC), "(a)lternative funding mechanisms are essential to decrease reliance on appropriated funds and provide predictable funding to programs." The reliability of recreation fees and public/private partnerships over congressional appropriations is dubious at best. More significantly, the potential ecological and economic impacts of switching funding authority, and therefore Congressional oversight, are significant.

The Strategy for Recreation also explains that, "(d)eclining budgets were the original catalyst behind many of these [outfitters, concessionaires, industry] relationships. As the private sector found ways to get the job done at a lower cost, we learned that these relationships often also enhanced the quality of services. We will welcome and encourage new partners and work to improve and expand these relationships." Unfortunately, the Department of Labor has now found that minimum wage jobs are a driving force behind the economy of using concessionaires. "Seems this recreation economic juggernaut has been built on the backs of minimum wage workers cleaning out the toilets and such for all those happy campers. The Department of Labor has been demanding that private concessionaires who run the campgrounds start paying prevailing wage rates that the Forest Service says will be between $9-10 an hour. The concessionaires say they can’t afford this and they will have to greatly cut back operations and employees if they don’t get an exemption," (Kamen, Al. 1999. The Washington Post. Editorial, 1-11-99. p A17).

Socio/economic Impacts

Ecological Impacts

Next Steps

In their Strategy for Recreation, the Forest Service outlines their philosophical shift in managing recreation, "(w)e must continue to evolve from a steward of natural resources and custodian of recreation services to a provider of wildlands and legacy experiences." The purpose of the fee demonstration program is for government agencies to show the public is willing to pay for amenities (experiences) that once were free. If the public chooses not to pay, the experiment will fail. If the fee demonstration doesn’t work, and the Forest Service loses the ability to charge for recreational amenities, the recreation industry will also lose their ability to benefit from recreational activities. The public lands will remain public lands only if we provide the Congressional appropriations to manage them.