Important news - Denver Post 8/21/01

All public lands should be free, completely & 100% free of any

additional charges after we pay taxes. Charging to walk on land 'we

the people' already own is asinine.

Tim, thanks for the update on the Golden Eagle Pass. Here is a quote

I found from a federal website: "For an extra $15, a Parks Pass

holder may upgrade their pass to a Golden Eagle. An eagle hologram

sticker is affixed to the Parks Pass. The Golden Eagle is valid at

any Federal recreation area with an entrance fee. The Golden eagle is

not valid for USER fees such as camping, tours, and concessions."

<p>

I would be interested to know what government owned sites you found

that where operated by private companies and did not honor the pass.

<p>

I found this web site which lists the federal sites where the pass is

accepted:

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recinfo/goldeneaglesacceptedhere2001.h

tml

Michael - Brainard Lake off the peak-to-peak highway in Roosevelt

National Forest and Jefferson Creek in Pike National Forest are two

sites that pop quickly to mind. A site in a National Forest in Utah

(sorry, can't remember the name) also charged me a "usage" fee

to "use" any of the pullouts along a roadway. I was told that I could

drive through for free (it was a state highway), but that I would be

fined if I was caught STOPPED anywhere along the route. This

$5.00 "usage" fee covered me for a week, but the Golden Eagle Pass

was useless.

<p>

I know that the Colorado areas are not part of the Fee Demonstration

Project (I honestly don't know about the Utah area), but since the

fees they charge are considered "usage fees", the Golden Eagle Pass

is not accepted. As your posted reference notes, usage fees are

TYPICALLY charged for things like camping and tours, but by simply

calling it a usage fee, they can get around having to accept your

pass. In each of the above cases, I simply stopped to see the area

and wander around (I'm ashamed to say it, but I didn't even have a

camera with me), I wasn't camping, touring, or anything else. I

suppose I was being charged to "use" the parking or the trails.

<p>

My point is simply that the Golden Eagle Pass is no guarantee that

you are covered for whatever fees an area decides to charge.

<p>

Interestingly, the areas I noted above are why I originally supported

the Fee Demo Program. Each of the areas is pretty highly (ab)used.

The fees imposed seem to have been used to improve the general

condition of the sites and, despite their heavy use, they were some

of the cleanest, best maintained public lands I've visited. I had

hopes that the Fee Demo Program would do the same for other areas.

<p>

The above areas are contracted out to private companies though and

from what I've been able to gather, they are very tightly controlled

on what they can charge and how they can and can't use the money. The

Fee Demo Program doesn't seem to have that same level of oversight.

Despite the apparently poor management of the funds to date (as I

noted in my earlier post), the lack of oversight is my main complaint

about the program.

<p>

As opposed to National Parks and Recreation areas (which must go

through a Federal process to establish their rates), my understanding

is that the Fee Demo Program allows areas to establish their own

rates. The area is also in charge of fee collection, AND they get to

direct how the money gets spent. Pretty sweet deal! The potential for

abuse in this type of situation is too high (and there ARE reports

that abuse is occurring).

I will be pleased to pay my share in access fees to help maintain

these lands. This is a no win discussion, one that personal and

emotional impications.

<p>

I buy a Golden Eagle yearly pass to access National Wildlife Refuges.

This monet is used to maintain these areas. I have no problem with

helping out, despite already paying taxes.

<p>

Bill

Cutting out the obvious divergence of political persuasion, several

conclusions on this subject are irrefutable. #1) Once governmental

based bureaucracy gets a toe hold on a new revenue stream, things

will never be the same. #2) The potential costs to you and I (Mr. and

Mrs. American) will continue to escalate proportional with the

growing mission statement of control. And #3) Since our country was

founded, we have never needed oversight while visiting and enjoying

Federal lands. I do not understand what has fundamentally changed.

<p>

After I let out a Planet of the Apes primal scream from my back porch

after reading the article, off went the letters to my elected

officials. I recommend that you do not accept the status quo and in

your own way justify any nominal cost as the natural progression of

our daily lives. Losing the freedom to go where we want on the

millions of acres of generic but beautiful Federal lands unincumbered

would be a crying shame that I hope my sons do not have to deal with.

<p>

When I go back to Montana and see huge ranches that have been amassed

and their unwillingness to allow access to Federal lands, it really

hurts. Progress has to have a point where we say NO MORE.

The bulk of those who have responded to Richard's post are opposed to

fees for access to public lands. Under most circumstances, I would

agree. However, you should keep a few things in mind.

<p>

Both the previous administration and the present administration have

grossly underfunded the agencies who are responsible for the public

lands. They have had the full support of the Congress because they

believe that the majority of the voters are not willing to pay taxes

for such extravagances as well maintained public lands.

<p>

Some of you have said that the lands don't need to be maintained.

That is true to some extent in areas that are not yet discovered.

However, those discovered areas, be they parks, monuments, national

forests or whatever, see very heavy use. Enough of those users leave

behind trash, drive in places where they shouldn't, cut trees, you

name it, that normal citizens get in the face of the land managers and

demand action. They want enforcement, and they want clean facilities.

The RV crowd, which has become a significant component of the

populatino that utilizes public lands, wants nice campgrounds and

roads.

<p>

Many of you see an evil bureaucracy. I'm not a fan of park or forest

rangers who feel and act as if the the land they manage were theirs

alone. However, most are actually interested in being good stewards

of the land and the wildlife that it supports. They feel besieged by

a public that is demanding greater access, either for recreation or

resource extraction, and yet is unwilling to push Congress into

providing funding to allow them to do their jobs. Most of these

rangers are paid substantially less than professional natural history

photographers. In some respects, they are little better than

volunteers. That only makes their job more difficult.

<p>

If you have a gripe about the fees, write to your Congressoinal

representatives and tell them that you would gladly pay higher taxes

so as to eliminate the need for user fees. I suspect that you'll be

told that you're a member of a small minority of people with this view

and open wallet. More reasonably, you should particpate in volunteer

maintenance efforts at your favorite public lands. Or join a natural

history organization whose charter is to support public lands. Such

actions yield tangible results not only in terms of material

improvements (trails, tash removal, renovations, etc.), they also

demonstrate to land managers that photographers aren't there just to

extract natural resources, i.e., compositions for your photograph.

I think respectable arguments can and have been be made both ways on

this one but I do think there's one error in the logic "we pay our

taxes, that's all we should have to pay." You pay taxes, I pay taxes,

and maybe everyone else contributing to this thread pays taxes, but

as I recall the statistics from the late, great debate over George

W's tax cut, something like 50% of the citizens of this country pay

little or no taxes and that's not even counting the millions of

illegal immigrants who obviously pay no taxes. It appears that the

people who pay taxes, at least in any significant amount, are

actually a minority in this country today. So at least the proposed

fees will cause those people to pay something if they use the lands

in question, which seems to me a good thing.

Rather than blame liberals, ou should blame those

'conservatives" who slash and burn all aspects of the local, state

and federal budgets (all aspects of course, except those aspects

where it profits their big financial backers, like giant cattle

ranching operations , big agricultural businesses, the defense

industries, weapon manufacturers, insurance agencies, the

energy industry, etc.,). These are the politicians who want us

(the people with small pockets) pay for using "our" public

lands.<P>

Funny how all these issues started to pop up in the wake of the

"Reagan Revolution". I don't think it is a coincidence. Guys like

both Bushes, and Reagan, and Tom Delay, etc. are exploiting

your natural independant streak by claiming to be on your side

and "against big goverment." when in reality they are big

goverment. it must be really psychically difficult to be railing

against yourself all the time. It must be what really makes them

nuts.

Sorry, you can blame this one on the Clinton administration who

needed the money to pay for the expansion of the National Parks

system that he set into motion.

<p>

Here is quote from a story published Thursday, May 27, 1999, in the

San Jose Mercury News- "In Congress, U.S. Reps. Mary Bono (R-Hemet)

and Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) introduced the Forest Tax Relief Act

of 1999 to end the program [user fees for federal lands]. Passage is

unlikely considering the Clinton administration proposed to make fees

permanent in its latest budget."

Using land destroys land, so we should pay for that destruction. While

I understand Boulware's anger, it is better directed at much greater

abuses, such as the 1872 mining law (hardrock gold and silver mines,

most of them foreign owned, pay no taxes on the income they generate by

mining federal land; this is simply obscene). Boulware's libertarian

argument against fees contradicts the libertarian argument against

government land ownership. But that is not his fault; after all, what

would politics, especially conservative politics, in the west be

without such contradictions? The rugged cowboy rancher, who couldn't

make it without government subsidized grazing; the rugged prospecting

miner, whose work is made possible by governmant tax exemption; the

rugged corporate farmer, whose produce is made possible by cheap

subsidized water; and the enterprising ski industry, which uses

subsidized water, forest service land, and subsidized highways. The

west is a welfare state of the highest order, but unfortunately that

welfare goes principally to enormous corporations. Were Cheney et al to

make these corporations pay the fair market value for what they are

doing, the tax revenue from that would offset by several orders of

magnitude the petty costs of stuffing a wooden box with a couple of

dollar bills. Boulware complains that he is paying too much. He is not.

The problem is that others are not paying enough.

<p>

Without public land ownership, much of what is now wilderness, BLM, or

other government land would be ruined even more by now, whether by

Californians, Texans, or people from Illinois, New York, and other

deep-pocketed colonial powers. If this land is "your land", it seems

fair that "you" should help defray the costs of its management and

conservation. Just as you do with gasoline taxes and other consumption

taxes.

<p>

What does this have to do with photography? More than you think. More

photographers need to overcome escapism, and need to consider how

"wilderness" and "nature" are human concepts, made possible by

philanthropy (Rockefeller giving Teton NP to the government, for

example) and government conservation efforts (T. Roosevelt and Nixon,

to name two GOP presidents whose conservation should shame current

republicans). If they did, more of them could overcome the technically

impressive, but nonetheless moronic pornography of Galen Rowell, John

Fielder, and other talented photographers who consciously seek to avoid

this issue, an issue which Robert Adams has pursued with great success.

By contrast, Fielder's book on Colorado is the photographic equivalent

of Hustler magazine.

<p>

The basic problem is that there are too many people in the west, but

that is the reality, and if photographers are concerned with reality

they should document that.

With all due respect Mr. Griggs, here are some facts:

1. I am not a libertarian and my arguments were not.

2. I am not against taxes...I'm against MORE taxes.

3. The wilderness was in fine shape before we got here, and will

remain so, with reasonable controls.

4. The very liberal DENVER POST came out two days ago and voiced the

same view as I have, and endorsed the same position...in their

editorial., citing the USFS, BLM etc. as claiming 'poor' status to

maintain public lands, while they just spent 1.6 million of our tax

dollars for a 'privy' at Maroon Bells, above Aspen. What nonsense.

5. The USFS is now charging admission fees and photographer fees at

Yankee Boy Basin, and other famous Colorado vistas.

6. I totally agree with you that all the escapism stuff, and I and

others are using our photographic skills to doccument the explosive

growth in the Colorado Front Range, and the rapidly evaporating rural

and ag life style as the ticky-tacky developments gobble up the lovely

high plains and a lifestyle that has existed for generations. They

are turning our beautiful pastures and ranches into subdivisions. How

disgusting.

7. Using land does not necessarily destroy lands at all. This is

nonsense. More forests are now growing than at any time in our

history...thanks to reforestation programs supported by private

sector.

8. If you feel the need to pay for more fees for what God gave you,

then sent your tax rebate to the USFS, and tell them it is a deposit

for your future "Tripod Tax".

9. Best of good wishes, and good luck.

10. For me, this thread is ended!

"If this land is "your land", it seems fair that "you" should help

defray the costs of its management and conservation. Just as you do

with gasoline taxes and other consumption taxes."

<p>

Yep, my paying gasoline taxes sure helps improve the dirt roads in

the middle of nowhere I take all too often just to get to 'normal

places' near where I live.

<p>

Public lands should be free access for all who care to walk on them.

NO additional fees at all. Not in the parks or other places. If you

want to use an improved campground, then pay extra. But for the

normal experience and access we should not have to be harassed.

<p>

As to underfunding... maybe if more of these wonderful public

servants would bend a bit to pick up some trash, move a few rocks &

pound a nail when they see the need rather than putting in a 'work

order' for someone else to do it months later the parks wouldn't be

in such bad shape. And, if they closed down the damnable motels,

hotels, snack shops & assorted souvenir & trash stands maybe they

wouldn't need so much 'infrastructure reconditioning'?

My initial reaction is negative after hearing about the wastefulness

of collection costs and the hassles people are receiving. Hopefully,

the fees are only limited to the most popular (highly used) areas.

After more thought, however, the unfortunate thing is that when

crowds start showing up in any public use area the only thing that

can limit the growth in numbers is use fees. In the case of Colorado,

I have seen almost every part of the state slowly devalued by the

presence of more and more people. If this is the only practical way

to protect these areas and keep the numbers down, I guess I would

happily pay my fee and accept the age I live in. I'm just glad large

cities are still so popular.