[dudley]

I've decided I'll no longer be shelling out three bucks everytime I get out of my car in the WMNF
Ya, I know I could buy a season pass, but it doesn't seem right to have to pay to park in the woods.
Last August, on a monday, morning I pulled into the Livermore parking lot at Waterville
A large popular lot with space for around 200 cars
There was a fellow there , in uniform, clearing out the weekend's envelopes.
The envelopes were never looked at all weekend
No one had walked around matching numbers to see who paid and who didn't
I've thought about this for a while

I don't want to pay this fee, and the powers that be don't seem to care if I do.
It may be dishonest but I take my envelope, tair off the date number and put it on the dash
The envelope itself goes in the trash
No one will bother me for not having the date/receipt on my dash
and I will not be paying the park my car in the woods.

[Andrew]

I've always wondered about that. I never see anyone walking around checking those. I usually pay, but I can see that it may be an "option" and less of a "requirement"

[dudley]

Here is someting I copied from another board on a simular subject

Andrew you may want to use this in the "articles" section
The author has given his permission.


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

I wish to express my concern over public land user fees commonly referred to as RAT (Recreational Access Tax), pursuant to Public Law 104-134 and it's progeny, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.

I moved to Murray County, Ga. to enjoy the outdoors and the hiking, camping, and climbing that this beautiful state offers. To me, being able to get away from the world of cars, buildings, roads and signs of human
activity to go to this Wilderness, to walk in the outdoors, climb a mountain, sit by a pond is a spiritual experience, a return to my roots, a revival of the relationship between myself and nature. But these values, and my activities have been severely crimped by the grim imposition of hiking and parking fees. Although it is not impossible for me to pay them on my current income, these fees are so morally repellent that I find myself avoiding going to areas that I once loved.

What is the injustice? First, it is unjust that a family which cannot
afford its own vacation hideaway should now have to pay simply to
spend time in the woods. I remember my younger, lean years living at
poverty-level wages. Every free day saw me hiking, fishing, hunting or just camping. Had trail fees been in force in those days, I would've been priced out of my only activity.

This law directs the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to: "encourage private investment and partnerships to enhance the delivery of quality customer services and resource enhancement, and provide appropriate recognition to such partners or investors." But the bill was passed without hearings as to whether the public wanted its forests "enhanced." As a U.S. citizen, I am an owner and stakeholder in these national forests and resent the attempt to transform me into a customer of a service. Nothing ruins my sense of freedom in the wilds more than having to pay to hike, climb, kayak or camp in a national forest. The wilderness values I and many other Americans hold dear are ruined by commercial concessions and facilities for the motorized vehicles whose manufacturers sponsor "partnerships." For those who want such "enhancements," there are numerous private facilities.

The Forest Service makes several spurious claims. The
first is that the number of users who pay fees indicates public
support. Instead, many of these payers do so rather than risk an
threatening encounter with an armed ranger. The Forest Service does
not count those who complain or protest. Neither does it count those
who simply avoid hiking because they cannot pay or are otherwise
offended by these fees.

The claim that the fee is a small one, very limited and won't
stop Americans from free access to the federal lands is akin to the
claim that the Iraq war will be over quickly, it's costs will be
nominal, we were defending ourself from WMD's, the drug prescription
plan will only be 400 billion,... you get the idea!

A second claim, that "all users should pay," is also a spurious one.
There is a tremendous difference in charging corporations who profit
from high-impact extraction of resources from public lands and
ordinary citizens who hike privately and engage in other low-impact
activities. Furthermore, extractive industries are charged fees far
below market value. The price paid for many timber sales does not pay
the Forest Service's full cost of administration, roadbuilding, and
other expenses. The anachronistic and exploitive 1873 Mining Law
permits mining companies, some of them foreign, to scar the landscape,
extract minerals without royalties and even buy patented land for
pennies on the dollar. Under the hiking fee scheme, ordinary citizens
engaged in low-impact hiking and camping are being forced to subsidize
corporate resource extraction.

Third, legislative requirements and the Forest Services claims that at
least 80% of the money will be used for direct trail and maintenance for the upkeep of facilities and the protection of the forest, are bogus. Both the General Accounting Office audit of 1998-1999 and the Department of the Interior report of 2001 show that the actual percentage was only 34% and 27%, respectively, far below the advertised 80%. These numbers support the claim made above that hikers are being forced to subsidize activities other than hiking.

I am thankful that I got to enjoy wilderness in the 60's and 70s when you just drove to your favorite trailhead, signed the trailhead register, and started hiking with no bureaucratic interference of any kind. Those were the good old days. I still go to wilderness areas, but the permits and parking fees, mountain fees, reservations required in some areas, and all the other bureaucratic wastes of my time and taxpayer dollars tick me off and they degrade the overall experience. I have seen no improvement of any kind to my wilderness experience due to the fees and permit requirements. But I'm sure a lot of bureaucrats are happy to collect a fat paycheck for collecting the fees and issuing tickets because someone took a hike on land they already owned without a permit.

With the proliferation of "No Trespassing" signs, there are not many
areas left where we can roam free. Hiking fees sell our national
commons, our freedom and birthright. I resent the attempts to take it
away. I resent being forced to pay the fees. I resent the secretive
way in which fees were established. I resent the way appropriations
were cut to make the Forest Service dependent on hiker fees. I resent
being charged with a misdemeanor if I do not pay. I resent the exploitation and commercialization of our wild heritage.

Public lands were established so that all Americans could enjoy them.
Part of our income tax (proportional to income) was meant for their
maintenance budget. Now there are fees that are not proportional to
income. Here is my example. I buy a Sportsman License to be able to hunt and fish. That's $60.00, just to be able to hunt and fish. But, I still can't go, yet, because to park, I have to have a Cherokee Forest Pass. That's $30.00. But if I want to go to Carters Lake, I have to pay again, because the Cherokee Pass is not good there. I will cost me $4.00-$7.00 in 'user fees' each time I go. That's not counting what I pay for equipment, taxes and above all, $2.75+ per gallon for gasoline to get there. Last year, I had to spend over $300.00 just to engage in outdoor activities locally. And that's just for me. If the kids were still at home, I couldn't afford to do anything at all! This is discrimatory towards low-income people.

A low-income family of four would have to pay to take a hike,
have a picnic, or even park. Such recreation is clearly prohibitively expensive for them. Should middle- and low-income taxpayers make up for the immense tax breaks for the rich that have contributed to a $400 billion federal deficit?

Deadbeats who don't pay up. Not only do they risk being cited for
non-compliance, they will be charged with a misdemeanor carrying a
fine of $5,000 and six months in jail. By comparison, damaging a
fragile wetland with an all-terrain vehicle results in a $75 fine. I have read the Bill through many times. The more I read, the more I question why a Bill of this nature has any business becoming law and imposing threats of serious criminal offense on Every Citizen of Our Great Country. The very idea of imposing a Class B Misdemeanor which carries a $5,000 fine, up to six months in prison, and possible probation is a slap in the face of Our Democracy. To add further insult to injury, a Class A Misdemeanor with a $100,000 fine, up to a year in prison, and up to five years of probation was included. Plus, according to the United States Code, a group or organization would face double the fines for not purchasing the proper pass or permits. Why overload our Federal Court system with noncompliance violations? Penalties as listed above, make not having a permit or pass a greater crime than which people who operate a vehicle under the influence or users of illegal drugs have to face. Plus the Class B and Class A Misdemeanor would make it very difficult for some people to be hired for certain jobs, thereby forever damaging their employability record.

For the benefit of every citizen in the United States of America, I
call upon you to Honor the Ideals set forth by our Forefathers to
maintain open lands for the enjoyment of us all in continually
supporting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Wrte, call and e-mail your elected officials and tell them to restore
funding to our Federal Lands Agencies, Stop the RAT now.

[Stomper]

Well, I certainly haven't researched the issue as deeply as the writer quoted by Dudley, but I have spoken with forest service officials about the fee. I don't think they're lying to me when they tell me that almost all of the money paid in the White Mountains, does indeed stay in the Whites. I don't like paying the fee any more than anyone else, but I do buy an annual pass every year. When I consider the miles of trails, roads, buildings etc etc that must be built and maintained, I think we're getting a good value for the money. As nostalgic as we may feel for the good ole days, I think the days are gone when the last natural places can be completely free. There are just too many of us now, trying to enjoy what's left. But, that having been said, I am still never freer than when I'm in the mountains.

[New Hampshire]

It may be a pain, but it is the law. The forest service has been seriously short of funding, and doing something like this is very un-cool. Funny as it may sound, Congress is more interested in spending your tax money elsewheres than allocating it to the Forest Service. All the money made from the fees STAYS in the WMNF. An annual pass is $25.....thats a years worth of parking for a mere $25!

Brian

[redsox322]

I agree that it's a little ridiculous that we have to pay for something that always used to be free, but like some of you have already said, the fees go to saving this place we love so much.

Even if I wasn't parking a car in the WMNF, I'd gladly pay $25 to keep the trails, huts, and attractions up-to-par. We just have to realize that everything costs money, and keeping these unbelievable trail systems the way they are is worth it.