Fee Demo Program - An increased cost to enjoy Lepidopterology?

Stanley A. Gorodenski stan_gorodenski at asualumni.org
Sun Jan 2 17:35:36 EST 2005


Please read the following message about the Fee Demo Program.I have 
deleted the person and his email address because I do not know the 
individual and so I do not know if he would want this information put 
out in a wider public forum. At the time this was written, the program 
was up for renewal and there was an attempt to pull it out of the 
Omnibus Spending bill by writing to our Senators and Representatives. 
However, that appears to have failed and it has been extended to 
December 2005.

I am also an amateur astronomer and became aware of it in that context, 
but it could also have an impact on those whose interest in Lepidoptera 
is as a hobby or avocation. Essentially, the program, should it become 
permanent (it is now a temporary demo program in only some specific 
national forests) would require anyone doing _anything_ in a national 
forest (except just driving through), such as stopping to even take a 
photograph, to pay a fee for the particular national forest one is in. 
This could become very expensive, depending on the final fee structure 
and ones activities. The _alleged_ purpose of the program is to increase 
funding for the maintenance of our national forests. I believe that 
currently it would supplement what is provided by Congress, but I think 
the eventual goal of the program is to make the funding of our national 
forests non-governmental, i.e., to privatize. This program started in 
1996 under Clinton but is now being continued under Bush. I wrote an 
email message to Senator Jon Kyl voicing my objection to the program and 
he responded. He said he is in favor of the program and cited some 
examples where it has favorably supplemented government money to 
maintain a few of the demo national forests in Arizona. The fee 
collection part of the program would be in National Park Service but the 
fees would be for access to the national forests.

What are your opinions of the fee demo program? Something to be 
concerned about?
Stan


>> Dear Folks,
>>
>> Unless you agree with this new Forest Service policy of eliminating 
>> access to
>> the national forests, which includes residential access for property 
>> owners
>> within and about a national forest, you will want to write your 
>> representatives
>> and those listed below to alert them of your position, and opposition 
>> today.
>>
>> "Fee Demo" is a national program with only local impacts. The Prescott
>> National Forest is one of the demonstration sites. Since 2000, 
>> between 50 -100
>> homeowners in and about the PNF have had to pay thousands of dollars 
>> each to assure
>> access to home. The PNF is processing homeowners "as time and 
>> opportunity
>> allow." (Seemingly in violation of constitutional "Equal Protection" 
>> provisions,
>> and other granted rights.) This process is repeated, in various
>> manifestations, in other National Forests, determined entirely by 
>> individual local Forest
>> Service staff, operating independently, pretty much unaccountable to the
>> affected public.
>>
>> With each easement a new gate, fence, or road closure is effected. 
>> This is a
>> problem for time critical fire prevention activities, initial attack and
>> suppression. It has been a problem with past forest fire suppression, 
>> it will
>> continue to be a problem yet the policy remains unchanged, despite 
>> the looming
>> disaster.
>>
>> This program, these closures, these fees are incredibly poor public 
>> policy,
>> even according to the Government. The Government Accounting Office 
>> (GAO), after
>> review last year, essentially labeled the program a waste. It is being
>> promoted and lobbied for primarily by the American Recreation 
>> Corporation, a
>> corporation seeking to commercialize non extractive use of public 
>> lands. Families
>> visiting parks, forests, and public lands have to pay increasing 
>> fees, to take a
>> walk, throw a ball, take a picture, have a picnic. Families least 
>> able to
>> afford recreation are drastically affected. Local residents are 
>> drastically
>> affected. Rural property owners are drastically affected.
>>
>> This is not about paying for access to National Parks, this is for 
>> fees for
>> local daily use of existing roads, historic access, campgrounds, 
>> walking and
>> riding trails in forest reserves and other public lands (only 17% of 
>> AZ is not
>> public land). These are fees for stopping to "smell the roses," or 
>> get some
>> fresh air, casual daily use. Until recently, these access rights onto 
>> and across
>> public land were all once part of our common lands right heritage, 
>> held in
>> trust for the public, in perpetuity, "free." Cost for federal land 
>> management is
>> best paid for by the public, through congress, with full oversight, 
>> by the
>> entire nation.
>>
>> In some forests it is prohibited to walk from private land, onto 
>> National
>> Forest Land. That is the end goal of the program, the control of all 
>> access. (see
>> the GAO report to congress, February 10, 1999, FOREST SERVICE 
>> Barriers to and
>> Opportunities for Generating Revenue, for example).
>>
>> In Arizona stiff fines have been issued to people stopping along the 
>> side of
>> the road to take pictures. The Forest Service has considered more and 
>> more
>> "ideas" for fees under the demonstration program, some truly 
>> terrifying in
>> operation. The processing of the tickets and fines for violations in 
>> AZ was
>> contracted out by the Forest Service to a private company, no appeal, 
>> no court, no
>> recourse, just a new business opportunity extracting revenue from the 
>> public
>> (you). This exemplifies the actual abuse to date, the potential 
>> abuse, revenue, or
>> corporate "return on investment" potential is greater.
>>
>> In Utah, both the public and the state are in open revolt against the
>> closures of historic routes. There, elected representatives have gone 
>> out with pick
>> and shovel in hand to reopen roads closed by the Forest Service.
>>
>> This is an attempt by a small group of congressmen to quietly shift 
>> costs for
>> National Forests unto local residents, it can be reversed. It is 
>> extremely
>> poor policy. It has generated endless litigation and banned access to 
>> more and
>> more people. Its passage and approval relies entirely on your 
>> ignorance of the
>> details and how your view can be heard.
>>
>> "Fee Demo" allows a largely independent agency to create a budget 
>> independent
>> of congressional review or effective oversight, a self funded entity 
>> growing
>> a bureaucracy entirely devoted to agency interest, often against the 
>> public's
>> interest and input. So far, essentially, the Forest Service has been
>> collecting the new fees solely to fund the administrators and cost 
>> for running the
>> program! The lobbying for this program is from corporate interest 
>> seeking new
>> business opportunities charging the public for the most common and 
>> most minimal
>> use of public lands.
>>
>> I believe the overwhelming evidence clearly points out that this vastly
>> unpopular program is a boondoggle, detrimental to the public 
>> interest, public
>> safety, residents, and the affected states. To change underlying 
>> policy concept
>> shifting (now increased) cost for national resource management 
>> historically from
>> the federal government onto limited local users is wrong, very wrong. 
>> To allow
>> an agency to create new fees for existing public facilities is 
>> clearly new
>> taxation. As the agency is not elected, there is little possible 
>> public control
>> of public spending. The potential for abuse is clear, sweetheart deals,
>> contracting irregularities, unaccounted spending have already been 
>> evident.
>>
>> Write. Sen. McCain's email and Congressman Rick Renzi's email is 
>> above. I do
>> not believe either of them support this trend to restrict access, or 
>> the "Fee
>> Demo" program. There is still time to help reverse this trend.
>>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list