Important news - Denver Post 8/21/01

[Tim Klein]

As a concept, I don't have a problem with "user" or "impact" fees. I believe that MAINTENANCE of public lands is an appropriate use of our tax dollars, but I believe that users of a resource should bear the burden of repairing damage and making improvements. Many heavily used public lands are suffering horribly from overuse, and I suspect that most reasonable people would agree to a small fee if they knew that the money would be recycled back into the area in the form of restoration and improvement efforts. Unfortunately, as is often the case with government solutions, this program doesn't work that way.

I've heard varying figures about how the money from this experiment is distributed; The referenced article says that only 2% goes towards "trail" improvement. The figures I have (US Forest Service figures from 2000) claim between 6% and 9% goes towards improvement of all "facilities" (including trails) and list only a miserable .5% towards habitat improvement.

Best case, that's less than 10% for improvements. Repair figures tend to get thrown in with the maintenance costs, but as near as I can calculate, the repair costs can't total more than another 10% to 12%, which means that less than 25 cents on the dollar goes to what I would consider reasonable.

On the other hand, the referenced article states 30% goes towards fee compliance and enforcement (the figures I have say it's closer to 20%). Government sources admit that fully 25% goes towards planning and administration at this point, which puts basic overhead costs at 45% to 50% or more than twice the amount of repair and improvement!

I've already written both of my (Colorado) senators, and I'd encourage everyone who disagrees with this program to do the same in their own home state. Governmental inertia will probably still extend this woefully inefficient program, but it can't hurt to make your voice heard. Ultimately, the "people" will end up having to pay more and more to visit the "people's" land.

See you all out in the wild during the magic hour....

(... but don't forget to bring your wallet!)

[Richard Boulware]

No Michael, your Liberal philosophy betrays your logic. Let me put it this way. When I buy a college education for my kids, I pay a fee for services delivered. When I pay to use my car, I pay for licences and a data base for law enforcement to catch bad guys who break the law. By your logic, every car load of four people should have three passenger blindfolded, and the toll keeper says the driver is charge $5 for SEEING. The rest of you...if you keep your blindfolds on are free of charge. SINCE WHEN IS GODS KINGDOM AND THE VISUAL ENJOYMENT OF SAID EXPERIENCE TAXABLE. GET A LIFE!

[Michael Feldman]

Richard, lets not get personal about this. I don't know how you are able to determine my "philosophy" about these things, but you are mistaken in your assumptions. I simply pointed out that we all pay many user fees, many more than we all realize. For example, on my Qwest monthly phone bill I pay over $3.00 in state and local fees (in addition to sales taxes). None of these phone access fees has anything to do with improving my phone service. I share your concern about over-taxation in all its forms. But what I can't understand is why the user fees charged for federal lands are any different in concept than the user fees charged for all the other things we get charged for. The bottom line is that the cost of the management and maintenance of these lands is far more than the fees that are (or will be) collected, so if user fees do not pay part of the cost, citizens are going to pay anyway via income taxes. Regardless of what happens with regard to user fees, you might want to check into the Golden Eagle yearly upgrade. For an extra $15 (over the National Park Pass) I believe that you gain access to all Federal lands.

[Chad Jarvis]

I don't think this is the forum for demonstrations against the United States government's policy on revenue generation. Perhaps Mr. Boulware should contact his congessional representative or senator. Perhaps we all should.

[Richard Boulware]

Mr. Michael Feldman: If you took my comments to be a personal attack upon you, I extend my most sincere apologies. My intent was to attack your ideas...not you personally. I am confident that you are a skilled LF photographer or enthusiast, and a nice guy. My point on all of this is that things have been taken to the extreme here! Yes, we pay tax on a bunch of BS charges on our telephone bill that stem from the old days when a telephone was considered a luxury. What nonsense. You are absolutely correct in your assertion that those taxes do nothing to improve your local telephone service. I could not agree with you more strongly. Those taxes are a political compromise by those who need the tax $$$ to promote more of their own social agenda. Prying those $$$ out of the hands of a politician is like trying to pry the cold-dead-hands off a pistol in the hands of a dead zealot. (and I AM an NRA member). User fees on federal lands are a scam. We already pay those fees every April 15th when we pay our income tax. Jellystone National Park is another matter. Over use and high concentrations of visitors puts financial pressure on the managers to upgrade rapidly deteriorating infrastructure...caused by those hoards of visitors. No problem. With regard to the Golden Eagle Pass.....for special upgraded facilities....I have no problem with that....but you are still missing the point. ALL federal lands is the issue. Sorry, but I am part owner in those lands and have paid for that ownership by my income taxes....every year. I can go places to shoot where the last person there happened twenty years ago. Should I be charged a user fee for making no mark, leaving no trail? I think not. Your comment that management of public lands is akin to managing Jellystone National Park, is simply not true. Most public land is cost free in terms of upkeep. Nature just does Her thing...and we enjoy it and protect it. I already have access to federal land, especially BLM land and I exercise that right months out of each year, and I pay no fee, except my own code that says I pack out what I pack in...and leave no trace of my being there. If you opt to send your $300 tax refund back to the Feds...be my guest. Tell them it's your 'tripod fee', in advance. I am tired of being taxed to death, and being taxed on viewing and photographing wilderness, it going to damned far. The great thing about photography, like Canon says in their commercials...is that you can go there, do that, and leave it the way you found it. I'll be damned if I am going to be taxed for that.

[Glenn Kroeger]

If you read the "horror stories" following the article, you begin to sense that one of the reasons these fees are so irritating is that, unlike NPS admission, they are much less uniformly imposed and much more poorly advertised and understood. If you are unlucky, you get nabbed, but most of the time, there is no clear "entrance station" or fee area boundary.

I was in Ouray in July, and luckily had read about the fee for driving offroad around Yankee Boy Basin. I was able to buy the pass ($5) at my lodging. If I hadn't seen the USAToday note about the arrests, or inquired at my lodge, I am not sure that I would have seen the poorly placed fee box on the way up to the basin. Even when I read the information at the box, it wasn't really clear what areas required a fee, and what areas did not.

I am willing to pay modest fees, but I expect the following in return:

1. Clear and unambiguous description of what the fee is for, and where it is paid. This includes signage at the fee site, and on all USGS and USFS maps.

2. Fair and uniform enforcement of the fees.

3. The fee to be used for maintenance and PROTECTION of my lands.

Unfortunately, given the current administration, I think protection of my lands is a pipe(line) dream.

[John Hennessy]

I propose a tax on those who use all caps; not to mention those who rant.

[David R Munson]

This kind of thing really does irk me. These charges are totally illogical and a complete load of BS from where I stand. I get really tired of all these federal agencies "protecting" our land from all these nonexistent threats and slipping my $5 in their back pocket. Federal lands, parks, etc should not be run like a business. Now, if there was some sort of (reasonable) flat usage fee for federal lands and such, and I could be guaranteed that every cent of that would go towards protecting, restoring, and properly managing the land, I wouldn't have any problem with it. However, seeing as such a set of circumstances has about a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming to be, I must wholeheartedly oppose the policies either currently in effect or soon to be so.

Not to raise any other issues here, but the US government is getting too big, too powerful, and above all, far too stupid. This is a perfect example of how things are getting out of hand. This is a matter of pure mismanagement of lands and how the big kids in DC feel like ruining the game for everyone else on the playground for no good reason whatsoever. Our supposed representatives are greviously misrepresenting us and I think that we really need to do something about it. Whether that means writing letters, joining a protest, or engaging in a bit of civil disobedience will vary from person to person. However, this is one of those things that, given that we take the proper steps, we can do something about.

[mike kwiatkowski]

On it's face, it sounds reasonable... Gee, those who use it should pay for it. How nice, how fair. The reality is, we have become complacent, soft and numb. We have been conditioned by clever spin words like contribution and investment when it comes to taxes and government spending. We all just lay back and turn our brains off and get the big screwgie. We are taxed in total right now at the highest rate in this countries history! We are told there is a great surplus (yeah, I know it's just phoney accounting). And now we should pay more? Yes, I love the federal lands. And I go to them quite often around here. But the fact of the matter is the money is already there. I have worked on capitol hill and dealt with budget matters. It would make you sick to see the ineptitude with which federal agencies deal with money. These agencies are not concerned with spending money wisely, they are concerned with spending every penny they have so they can prove they need more the next year. The spending frenzy that goes on within federal agencies near the end of the fiscal year is a sight to behold. At some point we need to say enough. And that time is overdue. If the people who started this great experiment 225 years ago (based in part on a tax of less than 1%) could see the happiness with which some people open their wallets and give money to the government at the point of virtual gun....It would be as shocking as landing on the planet of the apes.

[John W.]

It was my understanding that the check I wrote on April 15 went entirely to the missile defense program, not to management of public lands.

................