What's Wrong with the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program?
(Why shouldn't we all just be glad to "do our share " for the forests?)
What is the Fee Demo program?
Fee Demo is a nation-wide "experiment" OK'd by Congress to see what the public will tolerate in the way of fees for use of public lands and how feasible a permanent program would be. It was initiated as a 3-year experiment but because of complications, the summer of 1998 is currently the last summer before the final report to Congress is due in 3/99. [Note: Fee-Demo was recently extended until 9/30/04].
How did it originate?
The earliest date we have seen relating to User Fees is 1979, when according to the President of the American Recreation Coalition, Derrick Crandall; "Recreation fees on public lands were one of the issues which prompted the creation of the American Recreation Coalition in 1979." The ARC claims to have promoted the concept because they could see funding for agencies was being reduced and 'knew that the public was more than willing to pay' for outdoor recreation. However, the ARC and its members have much to gain financially from the User Fee program.
What data is being taken for the experiment?
Those who purchase a permit count as "compliant" and thus in favor of the program whether they agree with it or not. It does not appear that any great effort is being made by the agency to solicit input in opposition to fees. Since citations have not been issued, those who oppose the program by not paying are not on record. In fact, a budget request made by the Okanogan NF to set up a 1-800 number for public comments was turned down. The agency is sticking with its position nationally that 80-90% of the people think the fees are fair and could be higher.
Where does the money go?
During the experiment ending in 1999, 80% of the fees collected are supposed to return to the local forest, 15% is to be used for enforcement and other expenses, and 5% goes to starting future fees projects, regional fee demo printing, etc. There is no guarantee where the money will go after the experiment ends, however. In 1987 a similar program was instituted in the National Parks. For two years 60% of fees returned to the local Park. After that, 100% of the amount returned to the Treasury, and the public was not informed of the change in plans. The current 80% allotment may be spent for motorized or unmotorized trails or for visitor centers, toilets, personnel, and other front-country development. Here in the Okanogan, plans as of 4/98 were to spend 1/3 of the funds on various trail maintenance and 2/3 of the funds on developed sites, toilets, hosts, volunteers, etc.
Will the program become permanent, and if so, when?
The final report to Congress on Fee Demo is due 3/99. The original plan seems to have been that Congress would evaluate the program at that point and consider legislation to make the program permanent. but legislation is in the works to extend fee demo in National Parks for 5 more years. Many scenarios are possible. The extension could be extended to National Forests; Congress could vote to make Fee Demo permanent in National Forests next March; Fee Demo could be canceled if there is enough outcry; the number of experimental sites could be gradually increased until all Forests are participating and people are used to paying; other scenarios are possible. The ARC has lobbied in favor of extending the experimental program and typically they get what they ask for. It is most important to stay in touch with opposing groups in case calls and letters to Congress are needed at a moment's notice.
What if I do not wish to comply with this program?
Take every opportunity to voice your objections to members of Congress and to get written comment to the Forest Service. (Verbal comment may not make it onto the record.) Alternatives to buying the permit in the Methow Ranger District are: park without a permit and risk ticketing: be ticketed and pay the ticket under protest: be ticketed and appeal the ticket to a federal magistrate in Spokane; receive a warning ticket and ignore it; have neighbors drop you off at trailheads or camping areas so no permits are involved. (You need to check other Forests for local rules, since each Forest s program is different.)
Is there more to Fee Demo than we are being told by the Forest Service?
Yes. The Forest Service is not advertising the corporate connections which instigated the program and are promoting it. We have discovered, however, that many USFS personnel are not aware of these connections themselves nor of the related plans to offer campgrounds to concessionaires and other commercialization trends. They have been most interested in seeing our material.
What is the ARC, and how could they benefit from User Fees?
Members of the ARC are corporations and associations which profit from outdoor recreation. The more commercialized the National Forests become the more advertising will occur and the more the Forest Service will move toward "the bigger the better" mentality. Gasoline member companies which profit from sales of petroleum products used to travel or to power recreational vehicles are the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Chevron, and others. Members which would profit from increased sales of outdoor equipment are American Suzuki Motor Corporation, International Jet Sports Boating Association, Bicycle Manufacturers' Association of America, Coast to Coast, International Snowmobile Manufacturers, the Coleman Company, etc., etc. Members which could benefit from related arrangements underway to raise recreation above environmental concerns through special zoning are the American Hotel and Motel Association, American Resort and Residential Development Association, and the National Ski Areas Association . The list goes on. Although the ARC's current Challenge Cost-Share Agreement with the Forest Service ends in 9/98, its members will still be active in promoting commercialization of public lands.
But are there any concrete plans for commercialization of our public lands now?
Yes. A USFS document called the Private/Public Ventures Desk Guide advocates rethinking our "traditional" views of what belongs in the National Forest in order to attract corporations for development of large, profitable campgrounds. The Guide states that in order to make these campground businesses profitable we will need to consider commodities such as laundry facilities, electrical hook-ups, telephones, recreation halls, sewage dumping stations and others. According to the guide, industry standards will require a minimum average income of $20 per site per night. Slade Gorton, proud author of Fee Demo, has publicly referred to this campground partnership movement as the next demonstration project.
Are these plans for commercializing the Forests really related to User Fees?
First, the ARC is involved in both User Fees and plans for campgrounds as described in the PPV Desk Guide. It is listed as a prospective concessionaire for campground development in the Guide. The User Fee program also gets the public accustomed to the idea of paying for use of the outdoors in preparation for much larger fees at Industrial Strength campgrounds. Finally, Fee Demo weans USFS away from its traditional posture as a servant to the public to now operating as a business.
But don't we need to worry about reducing the national debt and balancing the budget?
Congress allocated Just $225 million for the USFS's entire recreation budget (about $1 per American or a dollar an acre. Meanwhile, the USFS timber sale program lost $791 million in fiscal year 1996 and the government's subsidies to mining companies cost taxpayers billions. According to Common Cause, Corporate Welfare alone (to companies such as McDonald's Archer Daniels and Midland, Gallo Wines) will cost the American taxpayer an estimated $265 billion in the next 5 years. If Congress really cared about the national debt and budget, these resource subsidies and give-aways to corporations would be the first to go.
What are the philosophic considerations?
It appears that our government has lost sight of the true value of wilderness and is now reducing its value to that of merchandising and profit. Some things are more important than making money at every turn. Our taxes pay for many things we neither use nor support - why should "users" be expected to support this national heritage? (Is one who sees a photograph a "user?") Should crime victims pay for criminal investigations and library patrons the public library system? This program cheapens our heritage and insults hard-working taxpayers who have already paid dearly for maintenance of our public lands. If future generations are to appreciate wilderness and support it, they must be able to see it and be educated about it. If the parks and forests become the exclusive playground of those with high income, they will be regarded with contempt by those excluded. Use of wilderness is not merely a form of entertainment, it Is a place of spiritual renewal as necessary to the human spirit as air is to the body. Are we dangerously close to losing all values except respect for money?
Where can I find out more?
We suggest that you visit the Wild Wilderness website for up-to-date information. This site also has links to the ARC site and the USFS site so you can see original documents for yourself. If you do not have access to the web, request information from Free the Forests at Box 1324 Twisp, WA., 98856 (509-997-4425) or another group opposing the fees.