Attention!! New Fee Imposed For Using Public Lands

[+Alan Ellis]

An Ohio congressman has forced a measure through Congress to implement permanent access fees for recreation on all land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. Ralph Regula (R-OH) succeeded in attaching his bill as a rider to the giant Omnibus Appropriations Bill recently enacted in the lame duck session of Congress. The bill was never passed by the House and was never introduced, given a hearing, or voted upon in the Senate. Omnibus bills are considered “must pass” legislation because of the potential for a government shutdown. Some members of Congress use riders attached to them as a way of getting funding for pet projects often referred to as “pork.” Regula’s bill, HR 3283, allows the federal land management agencies to charge access fees for recreational use of public lands by the general public.

 

The Regula bill will go into effect when Fee Demo expires at the beginning of fiscal year 2005 unless the new congress acts to derail it. Its key provisions include permanent recreation fee authority for all National Forests and BLM land. Failure to pay the fees will be a criminal offense punishable by up to $5,000 and/or 6 months in jail. Drivers, owners, and occupants of vehicles not displaying either a daily or annual pass will be presumed guilty of failure to pay and can all be charged, without obligation by the government to prove their guilt. The bill also establishes a national annual pass expected to cost $85-$100 initially.

 

THIS AFFECTS ALL NATIONAL FORESTS, BLM, WILDLIFE REFUGES, WILDERNESS AREAS, AND OTHER PUBLIC LANDS. BEGINNING OCTOBER 2005, ACCESS TO THESE AREAS WILL COST AT LEAST $85.00/YEAR PER PERSON. THIS BILL WAS SIGNED BY GEORGE BUSH ON DECEMBER 6. IT IS A DONE DEAL. THE ONLY THING TO DO IS TO WRITE, FAX, OR CALL YOUR U.S. CONGRESSMEN TO RESCIND IT IN THE NEXT CONGRESS.

 

This is the bill:

 

H.R. 3283

[ju66l3r]

They already shot themselves in one foot by not letting us use National Forests (and thereby losing the benefits of our visits for CITO, etc). I can't be the only one who thought it was only a matter of time before they shot the other one.

[+Mopar]

I just read the link you posted. I didnt see any mention of a fee amount of $85. Most of the areas mentioned in the bill already do charge a fee, and most of them are also off-limits to geocaching.

Edited December 8, 2004 by Mopar

[Dinoprophet]

For what it's worth, the current annual fee is $65. The bill also mentions day passes, which also already exist -- in national forests, at least.

 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service lands are already off limits, last I checked.

[+Markwell]

They already shot themselves in one foot by not letting us use National Forests (and thereby losing the benefits of our visits for CITO, etc). I can't be the only one who thought it was only a matter of time before they shot the other one.

We can use Nat'l Forests, but not Nat'l Parks.

[+Bjorn74]

I was asked just minutes ago if I knew anything about needing an Event Permit to place a cache on National Forest land. The fee is $25 annually.

 

I can tell you that the reason all the Ohio Reps (as in Representatives) jumped on it is that we've only got a few National Parks/Forests and whatever. Especially since they're all highly underused, Ohio politicians won't be hurt by it unless there's a ground swell. That's highly unlikely.

 

Sorry folks. You can go on hating us for another 48 months.

[+Searching_ut]

It's not really a new fee, as it's been in effect in many areas for years already. It's just an extension of the "test" program was put into place quite some time back, at least 5 or 6 years. (I don't think anyone aware of it ever thought is would do anything but grow with time) Currently the national forests in my area that charge are $3.00 for a day use permit, and of course much more for camping etc. I've been buying the annual permits for years being as how Utah has a much larger proportion of goverment owned land than most states, and hence requires access fees for hiking, etc.

 

More troublesome to me than the fees are the permits that are starting to be required in so many areas. Just to hike in many areas now require a permit, some of which you have to obtain through lottery type drawings. I think the days of hiking and backpacking in public wilderness types of areas will draw to a close in not that many years.

[Pipanella]

I think the days of hiking and backpacking in public wilderness types of areas will draw to a close in not that many years.

That's so sad.

[+briansnat]

Did you even read the bill before your hysterical post? Much ado about nothing.

 

Some excerpts:

 

a - FEE AUTHORIZED- The Secretary concerned may charge an expanded recreation fee, either in addition to a basic recreation fee or by itself, at Federal lands or waters under the jurisdiction of a Federal land management agency when the Secretary concerned determines that the visitor to those lands or waters--

 

(1) receives or is provided a direct service;

(2) uses a specific or specialized facility or equipment in association with the recreation activity;

(3) requires additional attention by staff, representatives or contractors of the Federal land management agency; or

(4) participates in an activity that involves more costs to the Federal land management agency than the costs associated with the basic recreation fee.

 

B - LIMITATIONS ON FEES FOR CERTAIN PERSONS, ACTIVITIES, AND LOCATIONS- The Secretary concerned may not charge an expanded recreation fee with respect to any of the following:

 

(1) For general access to any Federal lands or waters under the jurisdiction of a Federal land management agency.

 

(2) For access to any of the following:

 

a- A visitor center.

b- A dispersed area with low or no investment.

c- A scenic overlook.

d- A basic, core interpretive program.

e- A backcountry byway.

f- A wayside.

g- A drinking fountain.

h- A restroom.

i- An undeveloped parking area.

j- an individual picnic table.

 

(3) For special attention or extra services necessary to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.

 

(4) For any person engaged in a nonrecreational activity authorized under a valid permit issued under any other Act, including a valid grazing permit.

 

a- FEE AUTHORIZED- Except as provided in subsection ( b ), the Secretary concerned may charge a basic recreation fee for the following locations:

 

(1) Units of the National Park System.

(2) National Conservation Areas.

(3) National Recreation Areas.

(4) National Monuments.

(5) National Volcanic Monuments.

(6) National Scenic Areas.

(7) Areas of substantial investment by a Federal land management agency, which refers to Federal lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned that are not specified in paragraphs (1) through (6), but that--

a- are managed for recreation purposes or contain at least one major visitor attraction; and

b- have had substantial investments, as determined by the Secretary concerned, made in their facilities or services, in restoring resource degradation in areas of concentrated public use, including a visitor or interpretive center, a trailhead facility, or a developed parking lot, or in requiring the presence of personnel of a Federal land management agency.

 

It's basically authorizing user fees for improved areas, largely in national parks and other NPS administered properties. I see no requirement to charge fees in national forests and in fact some of the statute seems to proscribe doing so. Because geocaching is already restricted in NPS administered lands, there is no effect on the sport. There is no change in BLM and USFS lands except under the very narrow circumstances outlined in the bill.

Edited December 8, 2004 by briansnat

[+NightPilot]

Not a big deal for us Texans. The treaty joining the two nations specified that all public land in Texas was retained by the state. The only federal land in Texas is what the US government bought or was given. The biggest area that I know of is Padre Island National Seashore, which we gave the rest of you to take care of - a barren barrier island.

[+BadAndy]

I recall a fee imposed californians for access to the forests there. Something about parking. Not in parking lots, but anywhere...as in, see a nice view, pull off the road, get out to snap a few pics and you're in violation unless you have a $5.00 a day pass. As long as you're driving you're ok, but don't stop. I'm sure a californian that knows more about it will pipe in here shortly.

 

This is more erosion of our supposed free land use. I have no problem with fee's for developed areas. Improved campgrounds and the like are paid for by these fee's. But there should never be a fee to travel in, camp, or recreate in the national forests as a whole.

[+Kit Fox]

I recall a fee imposed californians for access to the forests there. Something about parking. Not in parking lots, but anywhere...as in, see a nice view, pull off the road, get out to snap a few pics and you're in violation unless you have a $5.00 a day pass. As long as you're driving you're ok, but don't stop. I'm sure a californian that knows more about it will pipe in here shortly.

 

This is more erosion of our supposed free land use. I have no problem with fee's for developed areas. Improved campgrounds and the like are paid for by these fee's. But there should never be a fee to travel in, camp, or recreate in the national forests as a whole.

Your referring to the "Adventure Pass" that we have to display to use forest service land. Basically, if you park, camp, hike, fish, or hunt in the national forest, you have to display the permit on your vehicle.

 

We have been paying for this for years now.

[+bigredmed]

I think the days of hiking and backpacking in public wilderness types of areas will draw to a close in not that many years.

That's so sad.

Yeah, but there are those pinheads that go out in the back country equipped with 1 liter of water, no first aid supplies, a walmart compass and a cell phone. One sprained ankle and its a $5000 med evac that we get to pay for.

 

The reason for these permits is to force people to stop at the ranger station and go over their plan. This lets the rangers know generally where they will be and whether or not they are actually capable of undertaking the hike.

 

If we want to go back to the days when we didn't charge a fee, then we also have to go back to the level of service we got for the limited staff we could supply with general fund revenues. No camp sites, no swimming areas, no concessions, and most of all, no helicopter rescues of injured back country hikers.

 

Permits can be overly tight, and rules are often created out of thin air. I was prevented from hiking to a cache in one of our state parks because the local ranger had decided that he would not allow hiking before 4:30 pm so as to not scare the horses on the trail. (Makes you wonder what kind of genius supplied horses for a kids trail ride that could be spooked by the sight of a middled aged man (I'm not that ugly....)

[+TresOkies]

Sorry folks.  You can go on hating us for another 48 months.

Not all of you. Just 50.25%. Or less.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Hogwash. There are not enough personnel in the USFS here in CO to do the job as it is. Now how are they ever going to put a fee station at every trailhead, and who would enforce such a regulation. Does OHIO stand for Our Head In Orbit. Beam me some reality will you.

[+briansnat]

Hogwash.  There are not enough personnel in the USFS here in CO to do the job as it is.  Now how are they ever going to put a fee station at every trailhead, and who would enforce such a regulation.  Does OHIO stand for Our Head In Orbit.  Beam me some reality will you.

 

Read the bill. Nothing's really changed.

Edited December 8, 2004 by briansnat

[+carleenp]

[ I was prevented from hiking to a cache in one of our state parks because the local ranger had decided that he would not allow hiking before 4:30 pm so as to not scare the horses on the trail. (Makes you wonder what kind of genius supplied horses for a kids trail ride that could be spooked by the sight of a middled aged man (I'm not that ugly....)

I cleared that up when I went to find the caches there. It is not that the trails are closed to hiking before 4:30. Instead they are closed to mountain bikes before that time because of the horse trail rides. They needed to do that because it is an extremely popular biking area and so there was no way to also offer trail rides without limiting bikes. My guess is that there was some mis-understanding when you went and the park person thought you were going to bike or something since that is what those trails are primarily used for when horses are not on them. Or perhaps the park person misunderstood the rule. Anyway, there are signs and such about it at the trail head now.

[+The Leprechauns]

Yep. I found that cache, too, and walked right past the park folks at the horse stable on the way. And I *AM* ugly enough to spook a horse.

 

Back on topic, as a lawyer I have to read legislation from time to time, and there are no specifics in this authorizing legislation regarding the amounts of the fees. BrianSnat's post is right on target. Brian, ever consider going to law school?

 

I'd be grateful if the original poster could cite to published governmental sources to back up the claims in the original post.

[+carleenp]

Brian, ever consider going to law school?

 

I thought you liked Brian? Why would you want to torture him with law school?

[+briansnat]

I'd be grateful if the original poster could cite to published governmental sources to back up the claims in the original post.

 

If you read it the language seems to suggest that the few national forests that do charge fees through their demo programs will no longer be able to. Perhaps Lep, Carleen or one of the other attorneys here can confirm, as they're probably better at reading goobledygook than I am.

Edited December 8, 2004 by briansnat

[dsandbro]

This gentleman, or someone else using the same name, is cross posting this identical rant on other outdoor related websites.

 

Brian is correct. It does not mandate a fee for all federal lands. It allows a fee system to be maintained where the respective agencies determine a fee is warranted. Most national forests will not institute a general access fee or if they do, will apply it only to certain areas. The bill specifically forbids a fee in the enumerated situations.

 

Much ado about nothing.

[+Alan Ellis]

This gentleman, or someone else using the same name, is cross posting this identical rant on other outdoor related websites.

 

I am the same person, and yes, I cross-posted on this forum and Backpacker.com. This post also appeared on Summitpost.org by a different person. I posted because I think it is important for the outdoor public to know what has happened and how it may affect us. My source is the bill itself and the real fact that the rider was passed along with the major appropriations bill.

 

No, I'm not hysterical. I just have a genuine concern about access to areas which I'm already paying taxes for. Any threat to that concerns me....and should concern you. I am involved in many outdoor activities as you may want to note on my website. I am new to GCing and I don't want that to also be affected by some stupid fee imposed by some idiot congressman. I have first-hand experience on how the government can take away or limit access to outdoor recreation areas. If you don't think it can happen, you should check out the Access Fund website (for climbers) who battles access issues every day (www.accessfund.org). This new bill is yet another example of the government curtailing access to public lands through fees which we already pay taxes for.

 

If you don't think this will affect free access to public lands, then that's fine. I hope it doesn't. If I have offended you or anyone else on this site by my post, then I apologize. My intent was only to inform and make aware of a very real situation. No.....this is not a "rant" as described by the less-appreciative reader.

 

Alan Ellis

 

----------------------------------

www.JackieandAlan.com

[+Searching_ut]

I recall a fee imposed californians for access to the forests there.  Something about parking.  Not in parking lots, but anywhere...as in, see a nice view, pull off the road, get out to snap a few pics and you're in violation unless you have a $5.00 a day pass.  As long as you're driving you're ok, but don't stop.  I'm sure a californian that knows more about it will pipe in here shortly.

You don't need to go all the way to California to experience the fees. Just drive south into the Western Uinta's anywhere along the Mirror lake highway, or go up the American fork canyon area Southeast of SLC. The fee for the last few years however has only been $ 3.00 per day. If there isn't a person in the little shacks on the road, you use a payment envelope and drop box setup much like the campgrounds use. Bascially it's like you described. Any use other than non-stop driving on the road and you have to pay the fee. I'm thinking you might get away with stopping to let game cross the road, provided of course you don't look at them as they pass

[+Colorado Cacher]

Simply don't use them. Seek out other options and then they will get the drift.

 

Many people don't understand greed until they live through it. No I haven't and no I don't desire too, I share. It really is that easy.