...but I shouldn't be overly flippant about an issue that is real (and clearly elicits real passion!). I think Glenn Kroeger's post above is eminently sensible, and I second the points he makes: if there are to be fees, they should be fair, modest, and well accounted-for.
......
You mean, you're supposed to put money *into* those dinky little wooden boxes at the park entrance?
Where's the fun in that?
Taxes {income and sales} are lost money. There is no use in crying or complaining about it because it is the government we chose. If you do not like the policies do something to change them rather than typing out your aggravation. In your cushy computer chair. On an impartial keyboard. Burried under your security blanket. Bythe way this is a photograpic fourm not a political one. BACK TO THE REAL SUBJECT. I would like to quote an earlier post "I pack out what I pack in...and leave no trace of my being there" well some people do not always follow this philosophy. I know that as hard as I might try I have lost a few items one is a Nikon 35mm F2 if you have found it please send it back. IMHO it is worth helping to pay a living wage to people to keep up the parks or forests or whatever. Keep in mind that most of us pay incredible amounts of money to ruin the environment with film and paper developing chemicals. I haven't heard any of the photographers even mention this little photographic secret. Bitch all you want but photographers are the biggest hypocrites and should be charged if not double what the public viewer is charged to clean up their well hidden trash.
As an aside - I believe the assertion that the Golden Eagle Pass covers these fees may not be entirely true. It was explained to me (at Rocky Mountain National Park headquarters, late last year) that the Golden Eagle Pass only covers ADMISSION type fees. Fees that are specified as usage fees are not covered (except in the case of several, specifically mentioned National Recreation Areas).
My understanding of the this program is that it can also include user fees, and that the Golden Eagle Pass would not exclude you from owing a fee of this type. Several government websites specifically mention confusion surrounding who and when the fees are due as one of the improvements that must be made.
Several highly used Colorado areas are actually under contract to private companies to manage, maintain, and collect usage fees. My Golden Eagle Pass has not consistently been accepted at these sites.
Thanks John for your excellent reply!!!!
Tim, thanks for the update on the Golden Eagle Pass. Here is a quote I found from a federal website: "For an extra $15, a Parks Pass holder may upgrade their pass to a Golden Eagle. An eagle hologram sticker is affixed to the Parks Pass. The Golden Eagle is valid at any Federal recreation area with an entrance fee. The Golden eagle is not valid for USER fees such as camping, tours, and concessions."
I would be interested to know what government owned sites you found that where operated by private companies and did not honor the pass.
I found this web site which lists the federal sites where the pass is accepted: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recinfo/goldeneaglesacceptedhere2001.h tml
Michael - Brainard Lake off the peak-to-peak highway in Roosevelt National Forest and Jefferson Creek in Pike National Forest are two sites that pop quickly to mind. A site in a National Forest in Utah (sorry, can't remember the name) also charged me a "usage" fee to "use" any of the pullouts along a roadway. I was told that I could drive through for free (it was a state highway), but that I would be fined if I was caught STOPPED anywhere along the route. This $5.00 "usage" fee covered me for a week, but the Golden Eagle Pass was useless.
I know that the Colorado areas are not part of the Fee Demonstration Project (I honestly don't know about the Utah area), but since the fees they charge are considered "usage fees", the Golden Eagle Pass is not accepted. As your posted reference notes, usage fees are TYPICALLY charged for things like camping and tours, but by simply calling it a usage fee, they can get around having to accept your pass. In each of the above cases, I simply stopped to see the area and wander around (I'm ashamed to say it, but I didn't even have a camera with me), I wasn't camping, touring, or anything else. I suppose I was being charged to "use" the parking or the trails.
My point is simply that the Golden Eagle Pass is no guarantee that you are covered for whatever fees an area decides to charge.
Interestingly, the areas I noted above are why I originally supported the Fee Demo Program. Each of the areas is pretty highly (ab)used. The fees imposed seem to have been used to improve the general condition of the sites and, despite their heavy use, they were some of the cleanest, best maintained public lands I've visited. I had hopes that the Fee Demo Program would do the same for other areas.
The above areas are contracted out to private companies though and from what I've been able to gather, they are very tightly controlled on what they can charge and how they can and can't use the money. The Fee Demo Program doesn't seem to have that same level of oversight. Despite the apparently poor management of the funds to date (as I noted in my earlier post), the lack of oversight is my main complaint about the program.
As opposed to National Parks and Recreation areas (which must go through a Federal process to establish their rates), my understanding is that the Fee Demo Program allows areas to establish their own rates. The area is also in charge of fee collection, AND they get to direct how the money gets spent. Pretty sweet deal! The potential for abuse in this type of situation is too high (and there ARE reports that abuse is occurring).
I will be pleased to pay my share in access fees to help maintain these lands. This is a no win discussion, one that personal and emotional impications.
I buy a Golden Eagle yearly pass to access National Wildlife Refuges. This monet is used to maintain these areas. I have no problem with helping out, despite already paying taxes.
Bill
Cutting out the obvious divergence of political persuasion, several conclusions on this subject are irrefutable. #1) Once governmental based bureaucracy gets a toe hold on a new revenue stream, things will never be the same. #2) The potential costs to you and I (Mr. and Mrs. American) will continue to escalate proportional with the growing mission statement of control. And #3) Since our country was founded, we have never needed oversight while visiting and enjoying Federal lands. I do not understand what has fundamentally changed.
After I let out a Planet of the Apes primal scream from my back porch after reading the article, off went the letters to my elected officials. I recommend that you do not accept the status quo and in your own way justify any nominal cost as the natural progression of our daily lives. Losing the freedom to go where we want on the millions of acres of generic but beautiful Federal lands unincumbered would be a crying shame that I hope my sons do not have to deal with.
When I go back to Montana and see huge ranches that have been amassed and their unwillingness to allow access to Federal lands, it really hurts. Progress has to have a point where we say NO MORE.
The bulk of those who have responded to Richard's post are opposed to fees for access to public lands. Under most circumstances, I would agree. However, you should keep a few things in mind.
Both the previous administration and the present administration have grossly underfunded the agencies who are responsible for the public lands. They have had the full support of the Congress because they believe that the majority of the voters are not willing to pay taxes for such extravagances as well maintained public lands.
Some of you have said that the lands don't need to be maintained. That is true to some extent in areas that are not yet discovered. However, those discovered areas, be they parks, monuments, national forests or whatever, see very heavy use. Enough of those users leave behind trash, drive in places where they shouldn't, cut trees, you name it, that normal citizens get in the face of the land managers and demand action. They want enforcement, and they want clean facilities. The RV crowd, which has become a significant component of the populatino that utilizes public lands, wants nice campgrounds and roads.
Many of you see an evil bureaucracy. I'm not a fan of park or forest rangers who feel and act as if the the land they manage were theirs alone. However, most are actually interested in being good stewards of the land and the wildlife that it supports. They feel besieged by a public that is demanding greater access, either for recreation or resource extraction, and yet is unwilling to push Congress into providing funding to allow them to do their jobs. Most of these rangers are paid substantially less than professional natural history photographers. In some respects, they are little better than volunteers. That only makes their job more difficult.
If you have a gripe about the fees, write to your Congressoinal representatives and tell them that you would gladly pay higher taxes so as to eliminate the need for user fees. I suspect that you'll be told that you're a member of a small minority of people with this view and open wallet. More reasonably, you should particpate in volunteer maintenance efforts at your favorite public lands. Or join a natural history organization whose charter is to support public lands. Such actions yield tangible results not only in terms of material improvements (trails, tash removal, renovations, etc.), they also demonstrate to land managers that photographers aren't there just to extract natural resources, i.e., compositions for your photograph.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks