In 1997 Congress implemented a three-year fee demonstration program that introduced new entrance fees and doubled existing fees in over 100 national forests and parks. The experimental fee collection program was designed to raise money for infrastructure and maintenance needs on the public lands because congressional budget cuts were creating a budget deficit.
At first glance the project sounds like a good idea--new revenues for protecting public lands, paid for by the people who use them. A three-dollar national forest entry fee or a $50 annual National Park pass seems as innocent as a school or a church holding a bake sale to fix a dilapidated roof or fund a social gathering. But a deeper look into the history and the motivation of the "temporary" program reveals something more worrisome; it is an experimental project that may be the first step in the commercialization and privatization of the land which belongs to all Americans, not just those with money or political clout.
In Utah the Forest Service established fee areas in American Fork Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Fishlake National Forest and Mirror Lake. Salt Lake County charges a fee for Millcreek Canyon, even though most of its users are hikers and cross-country skiers.
The Forest Service charges $3 to drive on the Mirror Lake Scenic Byway that connects Kamas with Evanston, Wyoming. Those who want to use state Highway 150 without paying the fee cannot stop by the side of the road to take a picture, use a picnic table or park a vehicle to go a hike. They can't even use the outhouse.
Whose land is it anyway?
One-third of the land in the United States belongs to and is paid for by the tax-paying citizens of the country. But for over a decade Congress has been slashing the funding for these lands. Between 1993 and 1998, federal lawmakers cut the Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness budget for the Forest Service by 26 percent. A person earning $40,000 a year cashed in on an annual savings of almost one cent with the budget cuts. For every federal dollar, only .00018 of one cent goes to fund the entire budget. The under-funding created a need for alternative means of support--if lawmakers wouldn't support them, the visitors would have to pay for their upkeep.
In 1996 the Interior Appropriations gave special fee authority to the Bureau of Land Management, the National Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service to select at least 10 and no more than 50 sites for a fee collection program.
Eighty percent of the collected money was supposed to return to the area; the rest would go to a general fund to support needs in areas where new or increased fees were not implemented. The new income could be earmarked for the development trails, restoration of damaged areas, improvement and maintenance of facilities and the implementation of the fee collection program. The areas could only hire new employees directly responsible for fee collection.
Participating agencies built permanent toll booths, hired staffers to carry out the "temporary" program and introduced the concept: pay to play. It now costs a lot more money to enjoy the outdoors. A family picnic, a day hike or snapping a photograph can now be had for a price on public lands.
But many land users vehemently object to paying for entry to public lands they already help maintain though tax dollars. Charging fees for specific facilities like a campground or a boat dock is understandable, they say--charging money to take a walk is not. It's like being charged an entrance fee to your private property even though you pay property taxes. Many dissenters decided the fees were unfair and refused to dole out cash for the access tax.
In 1997 two surfers in Oregon refused to pay the Forest Service for using a road that cut through the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area to get to the ocean. The pair did not stop to use any facilities, but the USFS said it could charge citizens for simply crossing through their land.
When the case went to court, the defendants' lawyer, Dan Stotter, cited 16 U.S. Code 4601-6a(b) which states:
"That in no event shall there be a charge by any such agency for the use, either singly or in any combination, of drinking water, wayside exhibits, roads, overlook sites, visitors' centers, scenic drives, or toilet facilities, nor shall there be any such charge solely for the use of picnic tables."
The surfers won the suit and put participating government agencies on shaky legal grounds.
Last September a federal judge dismissed the case of a hiker who did not pay a fee for hiking in Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho. The judge ruled future citations would be dismissed until passes were made mandatory and not a part of a demonstration or test.
One Durango resident, Anthony Braun, faces a $250 fine entering BLM land in Grand Gulch without paying the fee.
"I believe public lands belong to the public; we pay our taxes and Congress should fund them," Braun said, "The National Forest Service and the BLM are using public compliance for the fee demo; I intend not to be counted as unopposed."
The case is scheduled to go to court in the next few months.
Elitist Access
An Oregon-based non-profit organization, Wild Wilderness, has taken up the fight against the fee demo program. It says studies show the fees establish a pyramid-type hierarchy that gives the wealthy land access and keeps those with less out. One study suggests an average family earning less than $30,000 annually could not afford to pay the added entrance tax. The fees may curb overcrowding, but is it fundamentally wrong to cut down on visitation through fiscal discrimination? Public lands have always been regarded like public schools--everyone, regardless of income bracket, has a right to access them. Our public lands could become a playground for the privileged who live at the top of the income pyramid.
But beyond access discrimination, opponents say this program is simply the first step towards setting up a structure for private businesses to step in and take over public land management. If land users are willing to pay entrance fees, they may be willing to pay more for "improved" amenities at camping grounds or picnic areas.
In this land of opportunity, venture capitalists and big corporations have found ways to cash in on everything from prescription drugs to news to self-improvement--public lands could be their next target.
There have never been any public meetings on the fee demonstration program and many land users are upset that big corporations are abusing their influence and money to snuff out the voice of the average citizen.
"If they can privatize, commercialize, develop and motorize our forests and our BLM lands, they can make huge profits from them charging us to access our very own public lands. As a hiker and lover of the outdoors and natural world, I have very little or no clout versus corporations and industries, so it's easier to pick on us for the fees and money," says Durango resident and fee demo opponent, Jan Holt.
But the Forest Service sees the test program as a way to turn public lands into a commodity. Many public lands have already fallen into the hands of private entities. Around 1,700 private businesses operate on Forest Service land alone. According to the Forest Service, almost 60 percent of U.S. skier visits occur on public lands. The Forest Service simply turns over management of the land to ski companies and in turn the agency receives a percentage of the profits. The ski companies can build lifts, restaurants and other amenities for downhill recreationists.
In December 1997 the USDA Forest Service Chief, Mike Dombeck, spoke to a ski industry conference advocating the transformation of outdoor recreation into an income generator.
"It baffles me that the Department of Agriculture tracks the value of soybeans, corn or wheat to the penny by the day, yet rarely is recreation and tourism on federal lands understood as a revenue generator. Instead it has been perceived as an amenity, something extra that we are privileged to enjoy. Fortunately, that's beginning to change."
Dombeck pledged support for the fee demo program and the need for the extra funding it provided. Eventually his talk endorsed the need for private involvement in public land management and confirmed fee demo opponents' suspicions. It's interesting to note that Dombeck gave these remarks to the downhill ski industry, one of the first industries to capitalize from public lands. His audience is a model for other businesses interested in moving in on taxpayers' territory.
"Partnerships demonstrate that state and federal agencies, conservationists and the recreation industry can work together toward common goals. I call this commitment to working with people collaborative stewardship. It is exemplified by dedicated Forest Service employees who go the extra mile and by professionals like you that help to stretch federal dollars while improving recreational experiences on federal lands. Creating successful partnerships takes creativity, patience and a willingness to take risks and do things a little differently than in the past," Dombeck said.
If the fees are supposed to be a great revenue generator, why do are these private "partnerships" so key to the continuation of public land management?
Fee opponents say the fee demo program was started to test how land users would react to paying for the outdoors. The logic goes, if public land agencies cannot financially sustain themselves, they will be able to turn over the land management to someone who can turn a profit and share the generated revenue with the government. The most problematic outcome of private companies managing public lands is the building and development that will occur. Pristine, rustic grounds cannot turn a profit. Doug Hoschek, an anti-fee demo activist and inventor of polar fleece and the director of marketing at Concept 3 textiles fears the land management paradigm change will fundamentally alter the outdoor experience.
"The public isn't making money from somebody going for a walk," says Hoschek. "For years, the Forest Service allowed free access to the forest; if you wanted to stay overnight, you paid a fee. The facilities were primitive because they weren't designed to be a Motel 6. They are the grounds keepers, not the entertainment committee. We're no longer the stewards of the land; we're the customers."
The Sierra Club is actively campaigning to stop the program from becoming permanent. Executive director, Carl Pope, wrote to the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations encouraging members to cut the program:
"The fee program has the ominous potential to transform recreation management of our public lands from a public service orientation to a commercial enterprise. Recreation uses that generate the most income like mechanized-lift skiing, off road vehicle use, resort development and power boating would undoubtedly take precedence over lower impact activities like hiking, camping, back-country skiing, nature study and educational outings. This trend toward commercialization and motorization of our priceless public land is a major reason to fight recreational fees."
The time is now to stop the potential exploitation of public lands and public access through the fee demo program. The private sector has no place manipulating and exploiting nature for an elite few. Congress has a responsibility to financially support public lands, so their management does not have to be turned over to private entities for profit generation.
Unless it is extended, the temporary fee demo program will expire in September 2001; Congress is debating several bills to make the fees permanent.
If you would like to join the fight or find out more information, go to the Wild Wilderness web site at www.wildwilderness.com
After all it's your land.