Important news - Denver Post 8/21/01

[Brian Ellis]

I think respectable arguments can and have been be made both ways on this one but I do think there's one error in the logic "we pay our taxes, that's all we should have to pay." You pay taxes, I pay taxes, and maybe everyone else contributing to this thread pays taxes, but as I recall the statistics from the late, great debate over George W's tax cut, something like 50% of the citizens of this country pay little or no taxes and that's not even counting the millions of illegal immigrants who obviously pay no taxes. It appears that the people who pay taxes, at least in any significant amount, are actually a minority in this country today. So at least the proposed fees will cause those people to pay something if they use the lands in question, which seems to me a good thing.

[Ellis Vener]

Rather than blame liberals, ou should blame those 'conservatives" who slash and burn all aspects of the local, state and federal budgets (all aspects of course, except those aspects where it profits their big financial backers, like giant cattle ranching operations , big agricultural businesses, the defense industries, weapon manufacturers, insurance agencies, the energy industry, etc.,). These are the politicians who want us (the people with small pockets) pay for using "our" public lands.

Funny how all these issues started to pop up in the wake of the "Reagan Revolution". I don't think it is a coincidence. Guys like both Bushes, and Reagan, and Tom Delay, etc. are exploiting your natural independant streak by claiming to be on your side and "against big goverment." when in reality they are big goverment. it must be really psychically difficult to be railing against yourself all the time. It must be what really makes them nuts.

[Michael Feldman]

Sorry, you can blame this one on the Clinton administration who needed the money to pay for the expansion of the National Parks system that he set into motion.

Here is quote from a story published Thursday, May 27, 1999, in the San Jose Mercury News- "In Congress, U.S. Reps. Mary Bono (R-Hemet) and Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) introduced the Forest Tax Relief Act of 1999 to end the program [user fees for federal lands]. Passage is unlikely considering the Clinton administration proposed to make fees permanent in its latest budget."

[B Griggs]

Using land destroys land, so we should pay for that destruction. While I understand Boulware's anger, it is better directed at much greater abuses, such as the 1872 mining law (hardrock gold and silver mines, most of them foreign owned, pay no taxes on the income they generate by mining federal land; this is simply obscene). Boulware's libertarian argument against fees contradicts the libertarian argument against government land ownership. But that is not his fault; after all, what would politics, especially conservative politics, in the west be without such contradictions? The rugged cowboy rancher, who couldn't make it without government subsidized grazing; the rugged prospecting miner, whose work is made possible by governmant tax exemption; the rugged corporate farmer, whose produce is made possible by cheap subsidized water; and the enterprising ski industry, which uses subsidized water, forest service land, and subsidized highways. The west is a welfare state of the highest order, but unfortunately that welfare goes principally to enormous corporations. Were Cheney et al to make these corporations pay the fair market value for what they are doing, the tax revenue from that would offset by several orders of magnitude the petty costs of stuffing a wooden box with a couple of dollar bills. Boulware complains that he is paying too much. He is not. The problem is that others are not paying enough.

Without public land ownership, much of what is now wilderness, BLM, or other government land would be ruined even more by now, whether by Californians, Texans, or people from Illinois, New York, and other deep-pocketed colonial powers. If this land is "your land", it seems fair that "you" should help defray the costs of its management and conservation. Just as you do with gasoline taxes and other consumption taxes.

What does this have to do with photography? More than you think. More photographers need to overcome escapism, and need to consider how "wilderness" and "nature" are human concepts, made possible by philanthropy (Rockefeller giving Teton NP to the government, for example) and government conservation efforts (T. Roosevelt and Nixon, to name two GOP presidents whose conservation should shame current republicans). If they did, more of them could overcome the technically impressive, but nonetheless moronic pornography of Galen Rowell, John Fielder, and other talented photographers who consciously seek to avoid this issue, an issue which Robert Adams has pursued with great success. By contrast, Fielder's book on Colorado is the photographic equivalent of Hustler magazine.

The basic problem is that there are too many people in the west, but that is the reality, and if photographers are concerned with reality they should document that.

[Richard Boulware]

With all due respect Mr. Griggs, here are some facts: 1. I am not a libertarian and my arguments were not. 2. I am not against taxes...I'm against MORE taxes. 3. The wilderness was in fine shape before we got here, and will remain so, with reasonable controls. 4. The very liberal DENVER POST came out two days ago and voiced the same view as I have, and endorsed the same position...in their editorial., citing the USFS, BLM etc. as claiming 'poor' status to maintain public lands, while they just spent 1.6 million of our tax dollars for a 'privy' at Maroon Bells, above Aspen. What nonsense. 5. The USFS is now charging admission fees and photographer fees at Yankee Boy Basin, and other famous Colorado vistas. 6. I totally agree with you that all the escapism stuff, and I and others are using our photographic skills to doccument the explosive growth in the Colorado Front Range, and the rapidly evaporating rural and ag life style as the ticky-tacky developments gobble up the lovely high plains and a lifestyle that has existed for generations. They are turning our beautiful pastures and ranches into subdivisions. How disgusting. 7. Using land does not necessarily destroy lands at all. This is nonsense. More forests are now growing than at any time in our history...thanks to reforestation programs supported by private sector. 8. If you feel the need to pay for more fees for what God gave you, then sent your tax rebate to the USFS, and tell them it is a deposit for your future "Tripod Tax". 9. Best of good wishes, and good luck. 10. For me, this thread is ended!

[Tom Reymolds]

My initial reaction is negative after hearing about the wastefulness of collection costs and the hassles people are receiving. Hopefully, the fees are only limited to the most popular (highly used) areas. After more thought, however, the unfortunate thing is that when crowds start showing up in any public use area the only thing that can limit the growth in numbers is use fees. In the case of Colorado, I have seen almost every part of the state slowly devalued by the presence of more and more people. If this is the only practical way to protect these areas and keep the numbers down, I guess I would happily pay my fee and accept the age I live in. I'm just glad large cities are still so popular.