Posted by Mel Ladewig on April 26, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I don't have a problem with the NPS, NFS, BLM or FWS charging fees to access amenities, but it does seem rather absurd that we pay taxes to support these federal lands (my tax bill for last year should pay a good part of the salary for a forest ranger) and then pay again to use them because the federal government doesn't see it as a worthwhile expense of our taxes. On the other hand, we spend billions on fighter jets, and I have yet to get an offer to take one for a spin.
My only nit is that the fees should be fair and that the government should act like a government, not a for-profit business. Taking the recent Mt. Evans example, the state pays to maintain and pave the road, yet the forest service collects revenue from this roadway?
I also think that businesses that generate revenue from our publicly owned natural resources should continue to pay for the right to access those resources. I wouldn't say that the fees are necessarily fair today, but I do think that they should continue.
Posted by Craig Schultz on April 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Good news Art. Fees for access alone should be abolished. I'm ok with fees for improving the area the fee is charged for, but if said fee(s) gets put into a general fund to improve other areas/projects, especially those outside our own state, then I'm not so much in favor of them any more. I'm sure almost all fees follow this second option which seems really backward to me. The higher use, higher fee areas need the money to maintain, protect, improve those higher use areas and any money collected should be put immediately back into that same site/area. I seriously doubt all the money collected on Mt Evans is used to "improve" that area.
Craig
Posted by Les Barstow on April 27, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Not all fees collected in the Parks go to that specific park, either. There are some parks, monuments, etc. that aren't very highly traveled, but they still deserve our protection IMHO.
I don't think that the present law (or the previous one) actually dedicated *any* of the fees collected at a non-park area to the area where the fee was collected. That should probably change; as you say, it's being used and hence the area could probably use the money to maintain it in good condition.
As for access fees, we charge logging companies to use an area, why shouldn't people be charged for other uses such as hiking and fishing? I have no aversion to paying for access or for use; I do have a problem with the action described elsewhere of using demo fee funds to sell off lands or convert them to private use. As to the appropriateness of paying taxes *and* use fees, if taxes paid for all the needs (and wants) of government, we wouldn't need the fees. Since we're in a situation where the government has a 12-figure per year deficit, we're obviously either (a) not properly calculating taxes, (b) not properly assessing government spending needs, or (c) both. In order to fix it, you have to choose to adjust (a), (b), or (c) - until then, I'll continue paying fees for access to and use of areas that I consider important to maintain and useful to my hobby/future profession.
Posted by Craig Schultz on April 29, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Les, the big difference between the logging company and ourselves is that they are going to make money off the logging that they do. I don't know about you, but if someone is going to profit for using public land, which everyone funds via their taxes, they better get charged for something.
Discussion
5 repliesMy only nit is that the fees should be fair and that the government should act like a government, not a for-profit business. Taking the recent Mt. Evans example, the state pays to maintain and pave the road, yet the forest service collects revenue from this roadway?
I also think that businesses that generate revenue from our publicly owned natural resources should continue to pay for the right to access those resources. I wouldn't say that the fees are necessarily fair today, but I do think that they should continue.
Craig
I don't think that the present law (or the previous one) actually dedicated *any* of the fees collected at a non-park area to the area where the fee was collected. That should probably change; as you say, it's being used and hence the area could probably use the money to maintain it in good condition.
As for access fees, we charge logging companies to use an area, why shouldn't people be charged for other uses such as hiking and fishing? I have no aversion to paying for access or for use; I do have a problem with the action described elsewhere of using demo fee funds to sell off lands or convert them to private use. As to the appropriateness of paying taxes *and* use fees, if taxes paid for all the needs (and wants) of government, we wouldn't need the fees. Since we're in a situation where the government has a 12-figure per year deficit, we're obviously either (a) not properly calculating taxes, (b) not properly assessing government spending needs, or (c) both. In order to fix it, you have to choose to adjust (a), (b), or (c) - until then, I'll continue paying fees for access to and use of areas that I consider important to maintain and useful to my hobby/future profession.
Craig