J
John
Guest
Who gives a flying fart about this Bush fellow?
"Arch Stanton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=60742&syr=2
003
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Critics of Coconino National Forest's Red Rock Passport and Grand
> Canyon National Park's $20 entrance fee say President Bush plans to
> balance his 2004 budget by making the controversial pilot programs
> permanent.
> The administration favors ending the Forest Service's 7-year-old fee
> demonstration program, which sunsets in 2004. The Red Rock Passport
> charges daily, weekly and annual fees to park in heavily visited
> sections of Oak Creek Canyon and the Sedona Ranger District.
>
> The president's budget also ends a 1996 pilot program and gives the
> National Park Service authority to permanently set recreation fees at
> the nation's 388 parks. Grand Canyon National Park charges a $20
> per-vehicle entrance fee under the program that is good for a week
>
> The Bush plan is a "losing deal" for national parks and doesn't
> replace adequate funding from Congress, said Randall Rasmussen, acting
> regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association.
>
> "We've seen the benefits and we know it's a necessary evil, but it's
> not a long-term benefit to the parks. We've been trying to wean
> Congress off this secondary source of income," Rasmussen said.
>
> Grand Canyon National Park generates $18 million annually in fee demo
> money from entrance charges and is allowed to keep 80 percent.
> Although the funding is a "boon" for the park, making the fee program
> permanent will hurt the park in the long run, Rasmussen said.
>
> "Congress will abdicate their responsibility to properly fund the
> parks. They will wash their hands of it. If we continue to see a
> downturn in visitation or flat visitation, not only will the parks
> lose money, they may not be able to keep up with inflation," he said.
>
> Meanwhile, opponents of the Red Rock Passport say the Bush
> administration is ramming through a program unpopular with the public
> and Congress without public review.
>
> "The administration is trying to push an agenda of access fees on
> public lands," said Jon Orlando of the Arizona No Fee Coalition,
> "What's happening is the Forest Service has found a creative way to
> push the program without having to go through Congress."
>
> PIGGYBACK PASSPORTS
>
> That "creative" vehicle is a new national pass system that piggybacks
> off passports for national parks and other federal lands.
>
> Starting in mid-April, the $65 Golden Eagle Passport and related
> passes will also be good at Forest Service day-use attractions where
> fees are charged, such as national forest hiking trails in the
> Northwest and Southern California, the Mount St. Helens National
> Volcanic Monument and the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.
>
> "We think this is going to be responsive to what we are hearing from
> people. They want simplicity. They want convenience. And they want
> value," said Teri Cleeland, who oversees the recreation fee
> demonstration program for the Forest Service.
>
> "We want to respond to what we have heard from the public and Congress
> so we can gain a permanent program. We think this is a big step in
> that direction."
>
> Orlando, the statewide coordinator for the anti-fee coalition based in
> Flagstaff, said the Forest Service is trying to build public support
> for fee demo programs such as the Red Rock Passport by "re-feathering"
> the Golden Eagle Passport.
>
> "This is being sold as an efficient way to help the public. But it's a
> backdoor, behind-the-scenes way of making fee demo permanent," said
> Orlando.
>
> The Arizona No Fee Coalition and other groups such as the Western
> Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado are part of a national effort
> lobbying Congress to scuttle the fees in 2004.
>
> "Public lands suddenly become a possession through this program of the
> land management agencies, and not the public," said Rob Funkhouser,
> president of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado. "The
> Forest Service has got its spurs on about the program no matter what
> Congress or the public thinks."
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bush takes a liking to fees
> Originally published Friday, February 7, 2003
> Get ready to open your wallets, outdoors lovers. President Bush's
> newest budget proposal could make forest fees a permanent government
> fixture.
>
> The White House budget released last week aims to make recreational
> access fees permanent on federally managed lands, including a number
> of sites in the Sawtooth National Forest.
>
> The biggest obstacle to permanent fees is the resistance coming from
> both sides of the political aisle. Many in Congress recognize that the
> fees represent double taxation. But Idaho's delegation still needs to
> show a united front.
>
> Although Idaho Sen. Larry Craig opposed the fees in a Times-News op-ed
> piece last year, his recent statements that he will "keep an open
> mind," and that the program "has worked well in other states" are
> troubling.
>
> Craig needs to join his colleague Sen. Mike Crapo and call the fees
> what they are -- double taxation. Idahoans feel that way, and so
> should their senior senator.
>
> Genuine user fees -- for using developed amenities such as boat docks
> -- are a legitimate way to shift costs from taxpayers to those who use
> the facilities. But it's ridiculous for Smokey Bear to be a parking
> attendant for taxpaying Americans who merely want to walk in their own
> national forests.
>
> Bush and Congress need to drop the entire fee demo program and fund
> national forests outright. The land still belongs to those who already
> pay for it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fees a bad idea
>
> 03/09/2003
>
>
>
>
> To the editor:
> Well, there he goes again. It seems that Bush is set to make permanent
> Forest Service fees like the Red Rock pass, and the Park Service's
> ability to set their fees. Since the idea is to decrease federal
> support for these agencies, you can be sure that "passes" will soon be
> needed just to use public lands. It is also a good bet that entrance
> and other fees at the Park Service facilities won't go down any time
> soon.
>
> The notion has many failings. Here are two.
>
> Inefficiency. The first thing the Forest Service does is hire tax
> collectors. Combine this with administrative costs, and you will see
> that only a part, maybe a small part, of the fees collected goes to
> productive purposes. Furthermore, monies collected will only embolden
> the Administration and Congress to further reduce allocations, leaving
> the agencies no better off than before. I believe public lands should
> be supported properly by public funds. Playing tax collector is not
> the agencies' job.
>
> Unfairness. The need for fees and the like arises in considerable part
> because the federal budget is broke, and one of the reasons it is
> broke is the various tax breaks, proposed or in force. These breaks
> overwhelmingly go to the well-off. Now, the wealthy are not notorious
> for using public lands -- it is the rest of us that do. So, the rich
> get richer, and we pay the price in the form of various and increasing
> fees -- hidden taxes -- to use these public lands.
>
> I do not mind paying taxes, but I expect them to be used to good
> purpose. Making the rich richer is not such a purpose. Spending vast
> amount of money bombing people in distant lands isn't, either.
>
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nat'l forest fees, Bigfoot scam, endangered species vs. ATVs and more
> notes
> Tom Stienstra
> Thursday, March 13, 2003
> ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
>
>
> URL: http://www.fseee.org/home.shtml
>
>
>
> The Forest Service is taking a giant step to standardize user fees for
> recreation on national forests, but is still well short of requiring a
> permit for the 15 forests in Northern California and Sierra Nevada.
>
> The Golden Eagle Passport, a $65 permit that is good for entry to
> national parks, wildlife refuges and national monuments, will be
> accepted starting in mid-April at national forests anywhere in America
> where access fees are required.
>
> In the Western U.S., the most notable locations affected are in
> Southern California at Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino and
> Cleveland national forests, in Northern California at Mt. Shasta in
> Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and at selected locations in
> Washington.
>
> The move is the first phase in making the fees permanent, as directed
> by President Bush for the 2004 budget, according to Teri Cleeland, the
> program leader for marketing and fees for the Forest Service. It will
> not affect charges for campgrounds and boat launching, but rather for
> day-use, such as for parking at trailheads.
>
> "There is not enough funding to take care of all the people who want
> to come recreate on our lands," Cleeland said at headquarters in
> Washington D.C. "If the fee program went away (in Southern
> California), we'd have to close some of our campgrounds. We want to
> develop a fair equitable system."
>
> Creating access fees and standardizing them across California's 19
> national forests and elsewhere is unlikely in the near future,
> according to another source in Washington D.C., "because no politician
> is going to touch anything that looks like a new tax."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WE MUST WRITE OR CALL NOW TO STOP FEE DEMO FROM BEING MADE PERMANENT
> BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - AND FROM BEING SUPPORTED BY THE
> WHITE HOUSE!
>
> Rep Richard Pombo (R-CA), Chair of the House Resources Committee, has
> just indicated his intention to soon reauthorize (i.e. make
> permanent) the Recreation Fee Demo Program - for ALL the four
> agencies involved (Park Service, Forest Service, BLM and Fish &
> Wildlife Service).
>
> As new Chair of the Resources Committee, which oversees all public
> lands, Rep. Pombo hasn't until now revealed his position on the
> Recreation Fee Demo Program. Now we know he's supportive of making
> Fee Demo permanent, we must immediately demonstrate how contentious a
> move this will be, by an outpouring of protest mail and calls to Rep.
> Pombo's offices.
>
> We also know that the White House is pushing strongly for permanent
> public lands fees. It's been a while since we've asked you to
> contact the White House about Fee Demo. Now is the perfect time to
> send them the message, again, that Fee Demo must go (except for
> National Parks).
>
> Remember, the outpouring of protest you helped generate in opposition
> to Fee Demo kept permanent fee proposals from moving forward in 2002.
> WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!
>
> WHAT TO DO
> Please fax or mail a letter to Rep. Pombo, or call the House
> Resources Committee. There's no deadline, but early July is best.
> Remember, letters to DC are still delayed by screening. Send a copy
> to President Bush at the White House, or call and leave a message.
>
> BELOW IS A SAMPLE LETTER, WHERE TO FAX OR MAIL IT, THE RESOURCES
> COMMITTEE PHONE NUMBER, AND CONTACT INFO FOR THE WHITE HOUSE,
> FOLLOWED BY A BRIEF UPDATE ON OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WITH FEE DEMO
> IN DC.
>
> FAX NUMBERS FOR REP. POMBO
> Try any of these fax numbers that isn't busy! Remember, faxes from
> western states may go through to DC more easily AFTER 5 pm EST.
>
> (1) Rep. Pombo's Resources Committee - (202) 225-5929
>
> (2) Rep. Pombo's District Office in DC - (202) 226-0861
>
> (3) Rep.Pombo's Stockton, CA office - (209) 951-1910
>
>
> MAILING ADDRESS FOR REP. POMBO
>
> Rep. Richard Pombo
> Chair, House Resources Committee,
> 1324 Longworth,
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE PHONE NUMBER - (202) 225-2761. Please be
> brief and to the point and ask whoever picks up the phone that Fee
> Demo be cancelled for the Forest Service, BLM and Fish & Wildlife
> Service. If you vote Republican, please say so. Call Fee Demo a new
> tax.
>
> WHITE HOUSE CONTACT INFO
> President G.W. Bush,
> The White House,
> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
> Washington, DC 20500.
>
> FAX to (202) 456-2461.
> Leave phone messages at the White House comment line -
> (202) 456-1111, (9 am to 5 pm, EST, Mon - Fri).
>
>
> SAMPLE LETTER TO FAX OR MAIL
> Please vary this a little - or a lot! Letters that look pretty
> identical will carry less weight...
>
> Dear ...,
> Please do not support extending the Recreation Fee Demo Program for
> the US Forest Service, the BLM or the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
> These fees must be cancelled as soon as possible. They are a new tax
> on rural Americans.
>
> The Forest Service has been spending $15 million to raise $15 million
> from forest fees, according to the April 2003 GAO Report. The BLM
> and USFWS fees are bringing in only a few million dollars nationwide.
>
> The money raised by Fee Demo for these three agencies is not worth
> the controversy caused by fees to go for a walk or a drive on lands
> we already own.
>
> PLEASE WRITE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS VERY CLEARLY!
>
> ADDITIONAL POINTS TO MENTION IN YOUR LETTER
> * Please add your own comments (brief is ok) on Fee Demo.
>
> * If you vote Republican - please state so in your letter. The
> opinions of conservatives certainly weigh more with both the
> President and Rep. Pombo.
>
>
> FEE DEMO DC UPDATE
> The House Appropriations Committee voted on 6.26.03 to extend Fee
> Demo for two years for all four agencies, as part of the Fiscal Year
> 2004 Appropriations Bill. We had been assured this WOULD NOT happen,
> so it is somewhat of a disappointment. However, this Committee
> created Fee Demo and all its extensions to date.
>
> We know the Administration has been pushing hard for this. The
> Senate is more supportive of our opposition to permanent fees for the
> Forest Service, the BLM and the USFWS, so this extension may well not
> be included in the Senate's version of the Appropriations Bill, due
> up quite soon. We'll ask you to contact the Senate later in July.
>
> The long and the short of it is that we'll need you to be faxing,
> writing and/or calling to DC several times this summer - so keep
> those forest fee protest letters on your computer, ready to adapt
> each time as appropriate...
>
> Who else do you know, who you can ask to write or call? This is the
> summer to pull out all the stops on generating Fee Demo protest mail
> and calls to DC! Can you set up a table in an appropriate public
> place and get 10, 20 more letters written?
>
> As ever, we thank you for your help. Your response to these
> grassroots alerts will be vital to ending forest fees at the earliest
> opportunity.
>
> Alasdair Coyne,
> Conservation Director
> Keep Sespe Wild
>
> (805) 921-0618
> PO Box 715,
> Ojai, CA 93024
>
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.asp?no=2317
>
> Bush favors Forest Service Fee's:
>
> "The explosion in recreation use on the nation's forests has prompted
> Congress to consider a consistent, nationwide user-fee program. A USDA
> Forest Service spokeswoman says taxes simply don't cover all the costs of
> maintenance at national forests and parks, and that a consistent method of
> implementing user fees will be necessary.
>
> Meanwhile, critics of the program call user fees "the thin edge of a
wedge"
> that will allow the federal government, with the approval of the Bush
> administration, to privatize public lands by allowing for-profit
> concessionaires and more user fees. "
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.sfnewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3321146&BRD=2144&PAG=461&de
> pt_id=367954&rfi=8
>
>
> Bush proposes "Charter Forests":
>
>
> "WASHINGTON - The Bush administration wants Congress to approve a plan for
> "charter forests," a pilot program that would establish a new category of
> federal forest that would be managed locally.
>
> Some Democrats and conservationists worry it's another attempt to
circumvent
> environmental protections.
> They already are upset the Bush administration is revising several key
> Clinton-era forest policies including the "roadless rule" protecting more
> than 58 million acres from most logging and road construction."
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
> Alaska Senator, Bush using Forest fees to force
> privatization:
>
>
> http://www.azstarnet.com/star/tue/
> 20611lewisguestcol.recf.html
>
>
>
> Recreational fee demo programand t
> economic taliban:
> The Recreational Fee-Demonstration Program
> is the greatest threat to the federal lands
> since the breathtaking proposals in the Reagan
> years to sell off the entire public estate,
> and there is a direct connection between the
> two. The architects and many of the current
> advocates of Fee-Demo are the same people who
> wanted to privatize the federal lands back
> then. Fee-Demo is simply the latest (and clever,
> as we will see) incarnation of the urge to bring
> an end to public land ownership.
>
>
> http://www.tidepool.org/voices/behan3.cfm
> Bu--sh plan to make forest fees permanent is unveiled
>
> ---------------------------
>
>
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=60742&syr=2
003
>
>
>
> "The administration is trying to push an agenda of access fees on
> public lands," said Jon Orlando of the Arizona No Fee Coalition,
> "What's happening is the Forest Service has found a creative way to
> push the program without having to go through Congress."
>
> PIGGYBACK PASSPORTS
>
> That "creative" vehicle is a new national pass system that piggybacks
> off passports for national parks and other federal lands.
>
> Starting in mid-April, the $65 Golden Eagle Passport and related
> passes will also be good at Forest Service day-use attractions where
> fees are charged, such as national forest hiking trails in the
> Northwest and Southern California, the Mount St. Helens National
> Volcanic Monument and the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.
>
> "We think this is going to be responsive to what we are hearing from
> people. They want simplicity. They want convenience. And they want
> value," said Teri Cleeland, who oversees the recreation fee
> demonstration program for the Forest Service.
>
> "We want to respond to what we have heard from the public and Congress
> so we can gain a permanent program. We think this is a big step in
> that direction."
>
> Orlando, the statewide coordinator for the anti-fee coalition based in
> Flagstaff, said the Forest Service is trying to build public support
> for fee demo programs such as the Red Rock Passport by "re-feathering"
> the Golden Eagle Passport.
>
> "This is being sold as an efficient way to help the public. But it's a
> backdoor, behind-the-scenes way of making fee demo permanent," said
> Orlando.
>
> The Arizona No Fee Coalition and other groups such as the Western
> Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado are part of a national effort
> lobbying Congress to scuttle the fees in 2004.
>
> "Public lands suddenly become a possession through this program of the
> land management agencies, and not the public," said Rob Funkhouser,
> president of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado. "The
> Forest Service has got its spurs on about the program no matter what
> Congress or the public thinks."
>
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
> to be by the people, for the people.
> Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
> double taxation forest fee demo program.
> I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
> are active users of the public lands.
>
> I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
> Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
> give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
> or favor the Forest Fee program.
>
> Interesting. But I did find this on their
> website:
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69
>
> It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
> thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.
>
> And here is another thing I found. The
> BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
> peercent of California (according to them) is
> protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
> would add 2.5 million acres.
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97
>
> My question is why are they so concerned?
> It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
> could see their case if the total was approaching
> 50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
> a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
> refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
> areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
> motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
> think at the end of all this you have to ask
> yourself who benefits. And you will see who
> does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.
>
>
> Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
> a link for minig? Hmmm..
>
> I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
> What is a mining link doing on their site?
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm
>
> (look under "M")
>
>
> Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:
>
>
> http://www.wildernessreform.com/
>
>
> The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
> webpage is this quote:
>
> " Finally we are going to do something about
>
> the Wilderness Act".
>
> It appears this group supports building new r
> oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
> for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
> Thats right, the propose building new roads
> for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
> Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
> Wilderness, and other national treasures.
> While they appear to be a access/recreation
> group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
> towards the end of their explanation.
>
> "The Coalition supports the creation of committees
> composed of locally-based federal and state
> resource managers, local governments, local economic
> interests and local citizens which will initiate a
> process to override the basic non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "
>
>
> Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
> like Bush's "Charter Forests"?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
> A27700-2002Feb5.html
>
>
> Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'
>
>
> More from WARC:
>
> "Developing a mechanism to permit active
> resource management in wilderness areas to
> achieve a wide range of public benefits
> and to respond to local needs"
>
>
> Bush supports Forest Fees
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
> asp?no=2317
>
>
>
> So far here we have some very interesting
> findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
> concerned with resource extraction. We have
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
> born on recreation access by its members, not
> opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
> the Bush administration echoing these same
> things. The question is, who benefits? Where
> does the money trail lead? The answer is
> pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
> industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
> industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
> Thats right.
>
>
> Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?
>
> http://www.freeourforests.org
>
> American recreation coalition
>
> This is the group that started the whole "Pay-Us-for-Using-Your-Own-Land"
issue. Representing the recreation industry, they are trying to drive public
policy toward a "pay to play" system. Ultimately, this system could be used
to restrict access to most public lands, except on developed properties
managed by ARC members. It's membership consists of snowmobile, jetski, and
RV manufacturers, oil companies, ski associations, campgrounds, and Disney.
Of special interest is their spin-off Recreation Roundtable consisting of
recreation industry and media industry CEO's. The ARC and the Recreation
Roundtable helped design and implement the Adventure Pass. To get a more
detailed look at the ARC's agenda, read an interview with the ARC's
President conducted by a reporter for Motor Home Magazine, the journal of
the Good Sam Club (a sustaining member of the ARC).
>
>
> September 2, 1998
> The Honorable Dan Glickman
> Secretary of Agriculture
> Washington, DC 20250
>
> Dear Mr. Secretary:
>
> The Forest Service hosts more than 900 million visitors annually -
visitors who are seeking outstanding recreation experiences. The recreation
community recognizes that providing quality recreation experiences requires
substantial resources and, as a result, we have been active in proposing and
supporting new recreation fee authority for the Forest Service. We are very
pleased that the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, which is the
direct result of our efforts, will produce more than $150 million this year
in new receipts for the four agencies covered, including an estimated $20
million for the Forest Service.
>
> Although the recreation community's support for the National Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program is strong, it is also conditioned on the
Congressional pledge to treat new fee income as real gains for the Forest
Service recreation program, without any offset from appropriations. We
believe that the Congress is keeping this commitment. We are gratified that
the Administration, as well, has resisted using the new revenues to argue
for spending reductions on recreation programs - although OMB explored doing
just that early in the FY99 budget process.
>
> Despite this success, the recreation community remains concerned about the
Forest Service's recreation-program resources. Our inquiries about the
recreation budgets of key ranger districts have produced evidence that the
resources available to them have been falling, even when the Forest
Service's recreation budget is increasing nationally. It appears that the
grassroots recreation efforts are suffering from being at the end of the
"feeding chain," left with what remains after deductions for
telecommunications improvements, overhead assessments at the national,
regional and forest supervisor levels, and more.
>
> Mr. Secretary, we have appreciated your personal support for recreation
programs in the National Forests and the efforts you, Under Secretary Lyons
and Chief Dombeck have made to strengthen these programs. However, we are
asking you to make a visible and important commitment to those programs for
the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 1998, a commitment that the actual
recreation budgets for each ranger district will increase - at minimum - by
the same percentage that the national recreation program is increased in
your final budget, exclusive of fee demonstration program receipts. We
believe that a true increase in funding at the district level will help the
Forest Service begin to address the serious deterioration in the recreation
infrastructure and, once again, provide the kind of recreation experiences
on the National Forests that the American people seek and deserve.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kampgrounds of America Delaware North Companies
> Times Mirror Magazines REI
> Jayco L.L. Bean
> Westrec Marinas BOAT/U.S.
> Grady-White Boats Johnson Worldwide Associates
> Marathon Coach Outdoor Resorts of America
> The Walt Disney Company The Coleman Company
> B.A.S.S. Outboard Marine Corporation
> Harley Davidson
>
>
> American Recreation Coalition (ARC) Works For All of Us
>
> By: Dave Humphreys, President of RVIA and Chairman of ARC
>
> (Published October 1999)
>
>
> Today ARC is the focal point for outdoor recreation policy discussions and
decisions. RVDA is an active member of ARC, and RVDA President Mike Molino
serves on the ARC board of directors.
>
> Twenty years ago, a small band of recreation community leaders met in
Washington to discuss a better mechanism for combating serious public
attacks on recreation over energy use, financing and more. Within a month,
more than 20 organizations had committed to forming the American Recreation
Coalition.
>
> The accomplishments of the American Recreation Coalition since that time
have been notable and significant. Twenty years ago, the recreation
community had no voice in Washington. Today ARC is the focal point for
outdoor recreation policy discussions and decisions. We've moved from being
reactive, successfully blunting federal and state level actions threatening
recreation - like excise taxes on specific products or bans on weekend
boating - to being proactive, championing issues and actions, processes and
products that enhance outdoor recreation experiences in this country. And
along the way, we've developed working relationships with officials in the
legislative and executive branches of the federal government that are
nothing short of remarkable.
>
> Here are some of ARC's most notable achievements.
>
> The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (also known as the Wallop-Breaux Fund)
> Since the mid-80's, more than a billion dollars - generated by an excise
tax on fishing equipment and the return of a portion of motorboat fuel
taxes - have been spent to enhance boating and fishing opportunities. Last
year, ARC spearheaded the effort to strengthen that program significantly,
assuring more funds for boating safety and a new outreach program to help
more Americans enjoy leisure time on our public waters. That effort also
recovered an additional $135 million in boater fuel taxes for boating and
fishing enhancement.
>
>
> The National Scenic Byways Program
> ARC's efforts to bolster awareness and support for these special roads
resulted in the creation of byways programs by the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management and the establishment of a National Scenic Byways
Program. Today, 53 routes - showcased on the enclosed map that the Federal
Highway Administration has just published - have been designated All
American Roads or National Scenic Byways by the Secretary of Transportation.
In addition, more than $100 million in federal grants have been awarded to
enhance state scenic byways programs and specific byways.
>
>
> The Recreational Trails Program
> Since 1991, over $100 million in federal fuel taxes paid by off-road
recreation enthusiasts have been returned to the states for badly needed
trail construction and maintenance. With ARC's sustained support, this
program was appreciably strengthened last year and now receives markedly
higher, guaranteed funding. At the same time, communication and cooperation
within the trails community have dramatically improved.
>
>
> The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program
> First implemented in 1996 by the Congress at ARC's urging, this unique
program has helped alleviate serious shortfalls in funding for recreation
facilities and services on the public lands. By including the common-sense
requirement that fees be spent where they are collected, the program
generates some "-200 million in new funding for federal land-management'
agencies each year - and has just been extended through 2001.
>
>
> The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission
> For several years, ARC led the effort to establish a commission which
would be charged with finding ways to enhance recreation opportunities at
federally-managed, man-made lakes across the country. Finally created by
Congress in 1996 and officially launched by the President in 1998, the
commission is now wrapping up its work and is poised to recommend new
policies to dramatically increase recreational opportunities at hundreds of
these often under-utilized lakes.
>
> Clearly, ARC has been at the heart of public policy actions that will keep
the outdoors an important part of the American lifestyle long into the new
millennium. And other ongoing, ARC inspired initiatives, from Great Outdoors
Week to the work of the influential Recreation Roundtable, mean even greater
visibility - and clout - for the recreation community.
>
> As a member of the American Recreation Coalition, you should be very proud
of the accomplishments that your support has made possible. Unlike many
associations whose members are focused on the short-term benefits of
membership for their own organization, the members of the American
Recreation Coalition are focused on the big picture, the future and the
common interests of the recreation community. The results speak for
themselves. Twenty years after that first meeting, the American Recreation
Coalition and its members are recognized as thoughtful and effective
advocates for outdoor recreation. Such recognition does not mean that
challenges to outdoor recreation have disappeared. Far from it. However, it
does mean that the recreation community is well equipped to address those
challenges and transform them into opportunities. Thank you for your part in
this wonderful success story.
>
>
> Lobbyists, such as Derrick Crandall, President of the American Recreation
Coalition, are speaking in support of pay-to-play, commercial, recreation on
our National Forests and in our National Parks. Unfortunately Congress
appears to be listening to this lobbyists while it largely ignores the
American public.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Complete testimony can be read at
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/ag/hagFY1999.000/hagFY1999_0.HTM#94.
>
> OVERSIGHT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET FOR THE FOREST SERVICE
>
> THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998
>
> House of Representatives,
> Committee on Agriculture,
> Washington, DC.
>
> {snip}
>
> STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION
> Mr. CRANDALL. Thank you. I am delighted to be here representing the
American Recreation Coalition, which is a national federation of more than
100 organizations involved in meeting the recreation needs of Americans.
>
> Our industry each year generates some $400 billion in sales and touches
the lives of nearly every American. In fact, our data shows that 57 percent
of all Americans engage in outdoor recreation at least monthly; and upwards
of one in three Americans regularly recreate on our Federal lands.
>
> We certainly applaud the committee initiative in looking at the fiscal
year 1999 budget and going beyond the budget, looking at some of the broader
issues before you here today, including the oft-cited backlogs facing the
agency in recreation and roads and a seriously wrong trend in the agency's
budget.
>
> While recreation visits are climbing, the appropriated resources for
recreation programs at the district levels are shrinking rapidly. Visitors'
services and satisfaction appear to compete poorly against internal
priorities and end up with mere scraps.
>
> As the committee knows, the time is near when the national forests will
reach 1 billion recreation visits annually. These visits are by people
seeking many different kinds of experiences but they have a common purpose:
to enjoy time in an attractive and natural setting apart from the tensions
of our urbanized society.
>
> Their three core needs are good access, visitor facilities and services
designed to meet the needs of Americans living in increasingly urban
communities, and good management of the resources.
>
> Let me first address recreation infrastructure. The recreation facilities
in our national forests are not in good shape. While estimates of the
recreation facility backlog vary, the immediate need for capital investments
in campgrounds and trails, day use sites and visitors centers, interpretive
kiosks and other recreation facilities appears to be between $1 billion and
$2 billion. This does not include investment in new facilities designed to
meet higher levels of use today and expected higher levels in the future. In
fact, current levels of appropriations are exacerbating, not eradicating
this backlog.
>
> The goal set forth in the draft RPA program document 2 years ago was for
55 percent of all recreation visits in the national forests to occur at
sites that meet agency quality standards, and that will prove very
optimistic at the current rate.
>
> Let me just digress by saying that any recreation company which set a goal
of 55 percent of its products working right or 55 percent of its restrooms
being clean and operational would not make to it to the new millennium.
Disney emphasizes that it takes 31 magic moments to undo the damage of a
single tragic moment. The Forest Service, too, needs to set its focus on 100
percent satisfaction of guest expectations and, with good partners, that
goal can be achieved.
>
> A first step is a very different attitude towards capital budget needs.
For reconstruction of worn-out campgrounds and boat ramps, beaches and trail
heads, we urge the Congress to direct the agency to look at the private
sector. Through an extension of the term of permits, the agency can persuade
current and future recreation service partners to invest in water systems
and restrooms, parking areas and much more just as is done today at ski
areas.
>
> The agency has investigated this opportunity for years. It is now time to
move on the concept, and we call upon the Congress to authorize a concession
demonstration program in the spirit of the now under way recreation fee
demonstration program.
>
> Yet investments by concessionaires and permittees is not sufficient to
meet the needs of the Forest Service recreation program backlog. The agency
must address a dearth of business expertise in its operations. Efficient use
of capital must be an agency goal in project design, construction and
operation.
>
> Let me turn to road infrastructure.
>
> Unfortunately, the recreation backlog is dwarfed by the magnitude of the
forest road system backlog. The backlog for needed reconstruction of
arterial and collector roads alone, some 85,000 miles out of a system of
some 400,000 miles, is reported as $10.5 billion. The agency is responsible
for 7,000 bridges, of which 940 are currently rated as deficient; and only
40 of these bridges are being replaced annually. The lack of investment is
already creating a loss of access to forest roads and posing significant
safety issues.
>
> I express concern regarding a plan that would target a goal of 55 percent
compliance with agency quality standards for recreation. That goal is a
shining star compared to the goal for the future of the road program. The
agency projects meeting just 40 percent of its maintenance needs for
arterial and collector roads, and that is simply unacceptable.
>
> In the last 3 fiscal years, as you heard the Chief testify, the agency
reports a drop in its arterial and corridor mileage of nearly 10 percent.
This drop is not because these roads no longer lead to trail heads and
campgrounds, lakes and other recreation destinations. It is a reflection of
the reclassification of these routes as now requiring the use of
high-clearance vehicles for safe passage. This closure of routes by default
and not by design cannot continue.
>
> Today's forest roads are largely the product of the agency's past timber
production history. The Congress and the administration have yet to look at
the long-range road needs of the forests. What is clear is that total forest
road spending is declining, going from some $600 million annually in the
mid-1980s to less than $250 million in 1998.
>
> We believe that a forest transportation strategy is essential, and we urge
that a portion of the receipts of the Highway Trust Fund be earmarked to
forest roads. In part, this logic arises from the national responsibility
that we bear for providing access to the forest, but it is also based on the
fact that millions of dollars in Federal fuel taxes are paid by those 1.7
million vehicles per day using the forest roads.
>
> We are aware that the administration envisions an aggressive
decommissioning of roads in the forests based upon environmental and fiscal
costs. The recreation community does not necessarily oppose some road
closures, provided that access to recreation sites in the forests are not
significantly impaired.
>
> What we have called for, instead, is to emphasize an ambitious Roads to
Trails Initiative funded in part through recreation fees and through
cooperative agreements with States like California's Green Sticker Program
and a Road Banking Program. Under road banking, local routes might be
obliterated visually but retained legally, recognizing that the routes might
once again become important for recreation, timber or other purposes at a
later time.
>
> Finally, let me address the Recreation Program budget.
>
> I have attached as Attachment A some numbers that show what has happened
in the recreation field over the last 11 years. The Forest Service
Recreation Program has not fared well in recent years. As the recreation
task of the agency has grown in size and complexity, the agency's
appropriated revenues for recreation have declined in current dollars and
are now well below levels provided in the early 1990s.
>
> Even removing the capital budget component boosted under the Bush
administration's Great Outdoors Initiative with the help of this committee,
the O&M budget in fiscal year 1993 was just $261 million versus $218 million
in the current fiscal year.
>
> The impact on the ground has been dramatic. We spot-checked 10 key
recreation-heavy districts across the Nation, and we found that many
reported a decline in Recreation Program budgets of 50 percent or more
between fiscal year 1991 and today. None of the districts we contacted
reported an increase in appropriated funding for recreation. It appears that
50 percent or less of the funds appropriated by Congress actually reach the
forest district level.
>
> Where is the money appropriated by Congress for recreation programs
actually being spent and how can a quality recreation program exist under
these conditions?
>
> We find that a substantially higher portion of congressional
appropriations for recreation appear to be vanishing before hitting the
ground today than ever before. Our attempts to investigate don't give us a
clear picture as to where that money is going.
>
> We also believe that the Recreation Program is shouldering an unfair
higher share of general administrative costs at the regional and forest
levels based upon the time actually invested in recreation programs by
individuals at the regional and forest level.
>
> We ask the help of this committee to engage in further investigation of
this issue and invite the Forest Service leadership to commit to sustaining
in the field recreation efforts that reflect congressional appropriations.
>
> The second question I would ask is why we don't come before this body to
proclaim a crisis is at hand. The answer is that countless men and women of
the Forest Service and allies who share their love of the national forests
have responded to declining appropriated funds creatively through the
challenge cost share program and concessions campgrounds and with agreements
with State and local agencies which have literally generated millions of
dollars in funds to be spent on national forests. And through the effective
utilization of volunteers, the Recreation Program in some forest districts
is today outstanding.
>
> We have now become a fan of programs which deliver maximum new resources
to grass-roots level Forest Service officials. The recreation fee
demonstration program is important and correctly designed in this regard.
Eighty percent of all receipts are retained locally at the collection site.
We think the fee demonstration program encourages agency staff to look to
partners and customers to pay for recreation services.
>
> As an industry, we believe that Americans are willing to pay for quality
in their recreation. Our companies-Disney, Coleman, L.L. Bean-have learned
that lesson for generations.
>
> Mr. Chairman, the recreation community loves America's national forests
and looks to the Forest Service as a friend. It deserves the support of the
American public and of this committee. We ask your help in three areas:
>
> First, we ask you to urge support for Recreation Program spending for
operations and maintenance at or above fiscal year 1993 levels in constant
dollars.
>
> Second, we support appropriations for the National Forest Road Program of
at least $300 million, minus any timber purchase or credits.
>
> And, third, we support a concessions demonstration program which we
believe can make a significant impact on the recreation facility backlog.
>
> [The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.]
>
>
>
> ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
> They are a large group of corporations.
> Arc has currently been caught bragging about
> how theycreated the Fee Demo program:
>
> These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
> But when put together, and in favor of charging
> money to US taxpayers to use their public
> lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
> lands and our use of them.
>
>
> Bush's domestic issues advisor,
> Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:
>
>
> The Bush administration, along with Terry
> L Anderson are planning to turn our national
> parks over to corporate control.
>
>
>
> GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
> AUCTION OFF ALL
> FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
> Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to
>
> George W. Bush Jr., has
> proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
> federal public lands in
> the
> U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
> incudes every National
> Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
> it also includes
> every National Park and Monument. Under his
> proposal, non-profit
> environmental groups could bid on the free
> market against the likes of
> Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge, or against
> Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
> Park, or against Phelps Dodge
> to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
> bets on how the bidding will
> go?
> Anderson is closely associated with several
> conservative think tanks
> pushing for the privatization and/or
> commercialization of public lands.
> He is the director of the Political Economy
>
> Research Center, a senior
> fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
> website links to the Thoreau
> Institute which has proposed, among other
> nonsense, to privatize
> ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
> proposal was published by
> the CATO institute and can be viewed at
> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
> Anderson freely admits that his corporate
> take-over agenda would be
> wildly unpopular with the American public.""
>
>
> If you go to the link you can see it is published
> in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
> wing study corp.
>
>
>
> So what we have here is the Bush administration,
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
> corporations trying to wrestle control of the
> public lands to private enterprises for private
> profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
> our public lands. This is a bad thing for
> every single user of public lands from a tree
> hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
> to a hunter or a fisherman.
>
> It is time to see through the fronts, the
> lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
> eye out so our easily accesible public lands
> arent gone forever.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> You Rock! Your E-mail should, too. Visit Rock.com!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Arch Stanton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=60742&syr=2
003
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Critics of Coconino National Forest's Red Rock Passport and Grand
> Canyon National Park's $20 entrance fee say President Bush plans to
> balance his 2004 budget by making the controversial pilot programs
> permanent.
> The administration favors ending the Forest Service's 7-year-old fee
> demonstration program, which sunsets in 2004. The Red Rock Passport
> charges daily, weekly and annual fees to park in heavily visited
> sections of Oak Creek Canyon and the Sedona Ranger District.
>
> The president's budget also ends a 1996 pilot program and gives the
> National Park Service authority to permanently set recreation fees at
> the nation's 388 parks. Grand Canyon National Park charges a $20
> per-vehicle entrance fee under the program that is good for a week
>
> The Bush plan is a "losing deal" for national parks and doesn't
> replace adequate funding from Congress, said Randall Rasmussen, acting
> regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association.
>
> "We've seen the benefits and we know it's a necessary evil, but it's
> not a long-term benefit to the parks. We've been trying to wean
> Congress off this secondary source of income," Rasmussen said.
>
> Grand Canyon National Park generates $18 million annually in fee demo
> money from entrance charges and is allowed to keep 80 percent.
> Although the funding is a "boon" for the park, making the fee program
> permanent will hurt the park in the long run, Rasmussen said.
>
> "Congress will abdicate their responsibility to properly fund the
> parks. They will wash their hands of it. If we continue to see a
> downturn in visitation or flat visitation, not only will the parks
> lose money, they may not be able to keep up with inflation," he said.
>
> Meanwhile, opponents of the Red Rock Passport say the Bush
> administration is ramming through a program unpopular with the public
> and Congress without public review.
>
> "The administration is trying to push an agenda of access fees on
> public lands," said Jon Orlando of the Arizona No Fee Coalition,
> "What's happening is the Forest Service has found a creative way to
> push the program without having to go through Congress."
>
> PIGGYBACK PASSPORTS
>
> That "creative" vehicle is a new national pass system that piggybacks
> off passports for national parks and other federal lands.
>
> Starting in mid-April, the $65 Golden Eagle Passport and related
> passes will also be good at Forest Service day-use attractions where
> fees are charged, such as national forest hiking trails in the
> Northwest and Southern California, the Mount St. Helens National
> Volcanic Monument and the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.
>
> "We think this is going to be responsive to what we are hearing from
> people. They want simplicity. They want convenience. And they want
> value," said Teri Cleeland, who oversees the recreation fee
> demonstration program for the Forest Service.
>
> "We want to respond to what we have heard from the public and Congress
> so we can gain a permanent program. We think this is a big step in
> that direction."
>
> Orlando, the statewide coordinator for the anti-fee coalition based in
> Flagstaff, said the Forest Service is trying to build public support
> for fee demo programs such as the Red Rock Passport by "re-feathering"
> the Golden Eagle Passport.
>
> "This is being sold as an efficient way to help the public. But it's a
> backdoor, behind-the-scenes way of making fee demo permanent," said
> Orlando.
>
> The Arizona No Fee Coalition and other groups such as the Western
> Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado are part of a national effort
> lobbying Congress to scuttle the fees in 2004.
>
> "Public lands suddenly become a possession through this program of the
> land management agencies, and not the public," said Rob Funkhouser,
> president of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado. "The
> Forest Service has got its spurs on about the program no matter what
> Congress or the public thinks."
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bush takes a liking to fees
> Originally published Friday, February 7, 2003
> Get ready to open your wallets, outdoors lovers. President Bush's
> newest budget proposal could make forest fees a permanent government
> fixture.
>
> The White House budget released last week aims to make recreational
> access fees permanent on federally managed lands, including a number
> of sites in the Sawtooth National Forest.
>
> The biggest obstacle to permanent fees is the resistance coming from
> both sides of the political aisle. Many in Congress recognize that the
> fees represent double taxation. But Idaho's delegation still needs to
> show a united front.
>
> Although Idaho Sen. Larry Craig opposed the fees in a Times-News op-ed
> piece last year, his recent statements that he will "keep an open
> mind," and that the program "has worked well in other states" are
> troubling.
>
> Craig needs to join his colleague Sen. Mike Crapo and call the fees
> what they are -- double taxation. Idahoans feel that way, and so
> should their senior senator.
>
> Genuine user fees -- for using developed amenities such as boat docks
> -- are a legitimate way to shift costs from taxpayers to those who use
> the facilities. But it's ridiculous for Smokey Bear to be a parking
> attendant for taxpaying Americans who merely want to walk in their own
> national forests.
>
> Bush and Congress need to drop the entire fee demo program and fund
> national forests outright. The land still belongs to those who already
> pay for it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fees a bad idea
>
> 03/09/2003
>
>
>
>
> To the editor:
> Well, there he goes again. It seems that Bush is set to make permanent
> Forest Service fees like the Red Rock pass, and the Park Service's
> ability to set their fees. Since the idea is to decrease federal
> support for these agencies, you can be sure that "passes" will soon be
> needed just to use public lands. It is also a good bet that entrance
> and other fees at the Park Service facilities won't go down any time
> soon.
>
> The notion has many failings. Here are two.
>
> Inefficiency. The first thing the Forest Service does is hire tax
> collectors. Combine this with administrative costs, and you will see
> that only a part, maybe a small part, of the fees collected goes to
> productive purposes. Furthermore, monies collected will only embolden
> the Administration and Congress to further reduce allocations, leaving
> the agencies no better off than before. I believe public lands should
> be supported properly by public funds. Playing tax collector is not
> the agencies' job.
>
> Unfairness. The need for fees and the like arises in considerable part
> because the federal budget is broke, and one of the reasons it is
> broke is the various tax breaks, proposed or in force. These breaks
> overwhelmingly go to the well-off. Now, the wealthy are not notorious
> for using public lands -- it is the rest of us that do. So, the rich
> get richer, and we pay the price in the form of various and increasing
> fees -- hidden taxes -- to use these public lands.
>
> I do not mind paying taxes, but I expect them to be used to good
> purpose. Making the rich richer is not such a purpose. Spending vast
> amount of money bombing people in distant lands isn't, either.
>
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nat'l forest fees, Bigfoot scam, endangered species vs. ATVs and more
> notes
> Tom Stienstra
> Thursday, March 13, 2003
> ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
>
>
> URL: http://www.fseee.org/home.shtml
>
>
>
> The Forest Service is taking a giant step to standardize user fees for
> recreation on national forests, but is still well short of requiring a
> permit for the 15 forests in Northern California and Sierra Nevada.
>
> The Golden Eagle Passport, a $65 permit that is good for entry to
> national parks, wildlife refuges and national monuments, will be
> accepted starting in mid-April at national forests anywhere in America
> where access fees are required.
>
> In the Western U.S., the most notable locations affected are in
> Southern California at Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino and
> Cleveland national forests, in Northern California at Mt. Shasta in
> Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and at selected locations in
> Washington.
>
> The move is the first phase in making the fees permanent, as directed
> by President Bush for the 2004 budget, according to Teri Cleeland, the
> program leader for marketing and fees for the Forest Service. It will
> not affect charges for campgrounds and boat launching, but rather for
> day-use, such as for parking at trailheads.
>
> "There is not enough funding to take care of all the people who want
> to come recreate on our lands," Cleeland said at headquarters in
> Washington D.C. "If the fee program went away (in Southern
> California), we'd have to close some of our campgrounds. We want to
> develop a fair equitable system."
>
> Creating access fees and standardizing them across California's 19
> national forests and elsewhere is unlikely in the near future,
> according to another source in Washington D.C., "because no politician
> is going to touch anything that looks like a new tax."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WE MUST WRITE OR CALL NOW TO STOP FEE DEMO FROM BEING MADE PERMANENT
> BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - AND FROM BEING SUPPORTED BY THE
> WHITE HOUSE!
>
> Rep Richard Pombo (R-CA), Chair of the House Resources Committee, has
> just indicated his intention to soon reauthorize (i.e. make
> permanent) the Recreation Fee Demo Program - for ALL the four
> agencies involved (Park Service, Forest Service, BLM and Fish &
> Wildlife Service).
>
> As new Chair of the Resources Committee, which oversees all public
> lands, Rep. Pombo hasn't until now revealed his position on the
> Recreation Fee Demo Program. Now we know he's supportive of making
> Fee Demo permanent, we must immediately demonstrate how contentious a
> move this will be, by an outpouring of protest mail and calls to Rep.
> Pombo's offices.
>
> We also know that the White House is pushing strongly for permanent
> public lands fees. It's been a while since we've asked you to
> contact the White House about Fee Demo. Now is the perfect time to
> send them the message, again, that Fee Demo must go (except for
> National Parks).
>
> Remember, the outpouring of protest you helped generate in opposition
> to Fee Demo kept permanent fee proposals from moving forward in 2002.
> WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!
>
> WHAT TO DO
> Please fax or mail a letter to Rep. Pombo, or call the House
> Resources Committee. There's no deadline, but early July is best.
> Remember, letters to DC are still delayed by screening. Send a copy
> to President Bush at the White House, or call and leave a message.
>
> BELOW IS A SAMPLE LETTER, WHERE TO FAX OR MAIL IT, THE RESOURCES
> COMMITTEE PHONE NUMBER, AND CONTACT INFO FOR THE WHITE HOUSE,
> FOLLOWED BY A BRIEF UPDATE ON OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WITH FEE DEMO
> IN DC.
>
> FAX NUMBERS FOR REP. POMBO
> Try any of these fax numbers that isn't busy! Remember, faxes from
> western states may go through to DC more easily AFTER 5 pm EST.
>
> (1) Rep. Pombo's Resources Committee - (202) 225-5929
>
> (2) Rep. Pombo's District Office in DC - (202) 226-0861
>
> (3) Rep.Pombo's Stockton, CA office - (209) 951-1910
>
>
> MAILING ADDRESS FOR REP. POMBO
>
> Rep. Richard Pombo
> Chair, House Resources Committee,
> 1324 Longworth,
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE PHONE NUMBER - (202) 225-2761. Please be
> brief and to the point and ask whoever picks up the phone that Fee
> Demo be cancelled for the Forest Service, BLM and Fish & Wildlife
> Service. If you vote Republican, please say so. Call Fee Demo a new
> tax.
>
> WHITE HOUSE CONTACT INFO
> President G.W. Bush,
> The White House,
> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
> Washington, DC 20500.
>
> FAX to (202) 456-2461.
> Leave phone messages at the White House comment line -
> (202) 456-1111, (9 am to 5 pm, EST, Mon - Fri).
>
>
> SAMPLE LETTER TO FAX OR MAIL
> Please vary this a little - or a lot! Letters that look pretty
> identical will carry less weight...
>
> Dear ...,
> Please do not support extending the Recreation Fee Demo Program for
> the US Forest Service, the BLM or the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
> These fees must be cancelled as soon as possible. They are a new tax
> on rural Americans.
>
> The Forest Service has been spending $15 million to raise $15 million
> from forest fees, according to the April 2003 GAO Report. The BLM
> and USFWS fees are bringing in only a few million dollars nationwide.
>
> The money raised by Fee Demo for these three agencies is not worth
> the controversy caused by fees to go for a walk or a drive on lands
> we already own.
>
> PLEASE WRITE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS VERY CLEARLY!
>
> ADDITIONAL POINTS TO MENTION IN YOUR LETTER
> * Please add your own comments (brief is ok) on Fee Demo.
>
> * If you vote Republican - please state so in your letter. The
> opinions of conservatives certainly weigh more with both the
> President and Rep. Pombo.
>
>
> FEE DEMO DC UPDATE
> The House Appropriations Committee voted on 6.26.03 to extend Fee
> Demo for two years for all four agencies, as part of the Fiscal Year
> 2004 Appropriations Bill. We had been assured this WOULD NOT happen,
> so it is somewhat of a disappointment. However, this Committee
> created Fee Demo and all its extensions to date.
>
> We know the Administration has been pushing hard for this. The
> Senate is more supportive of our opposition to permanent fees for the
> Forest Service, the BLM and the USFWS, so this extension may well not
> be included in the Senate's version of the Appropriations Bill, due
> up quite soon. We'll ask you to contact the Senate later in July.
>
> The long and the short of it is that we'll need you to be faxing,
> writing and/or calling to DC several times this summer - so keep
> those forest fee protest letters on your computer, ready to adapt
> each time as appropriate...
>
> Who else do you know, who you can ask to write or call? This is the
> summer to pull out all the stops on generating Fee Demo protest mail
> and calls to DC! Can you set up a table in an appropriate public
> place and get 10, 20 more letters written?
>
> As ever, we thank you for your help. Your response to these
> grassroots alerts will be vital to ending forest fees at the earliest
> opportunity.
>
> Alasdair Coyne,
> Conservation Director
> Keep Sespe Wild
>
> (805) 921-0618
> PO Box 715,
> Ojai, CA 93024
>
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.asp?no=2317
>
> Bush favors Forest Service Fee's:
>
> "The explosion in recreation use on the nation's forests has prompted
> Congress to consider a consistent, nationwide user-fee program. A USDA
> Forest Service spokeswoman says taxes simply don't cover all the costs of
> maintenance at national forests and parks, and that a consistent method of
> implementing user fees will be necessary.
>
> Meanwhile, critics of the program call user fees "the thin edge of a
wedge"
> that will allow the federal government, with the approval of the Bush
> administration, to privatize public lands by allowing for-profit
> concessionaires and more user fees. "
>
> ------------
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.sfnewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3321146&BRD=2144&PAG=461&de
> pt_id=367954&rfi=8
>
>
> Bush proposes "Charter Forests":
>
>
> "WASHINGTON - The Bush administration wants Congress to approve a plan for
> "charter forests," a pilot program that would establish a new category of
> federal forest that would be managed locally.
>
> Some Democrats and conservationists worry it's another attempt to
circumvent
> environmental protections.
> They already are upset the Bush administration is revising several key
> Clinton-era forest policies including the "roadless rule" protecting more
> than 58 million acres from most logging and road construction."
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
> Alaska Senator, Bush using Forest fees to force
> privatization:
>
>
> http://www.azstarnet.com/star/tue/
> 20611lewisguestcol.recf.html
>
>
>
> Recreational fee demo programand t
> economic taliban:
> The Recreational Fee-Demonstration Program
> is the greatest threat to the federal lands
> since the breathtaking proposals in the Reagan
> years to sell off the entire public estate,
> and there is a direct connection between the
> two. The architects and many of the current
> advocates of Fee-Demo are the same people who
> wanted to privatize the federal lands back
> then. Fee-Demo is simply the latest (and clever,
> as we will see) incarnation of the urge to bring
> an end to public land ownership.
>
>
> http://www.tidepool.org/voices/behan3.cfm
> Bu--sh plan to make forest fees permanent is unveiled
>
> ---------------------------
>
>
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=60742&syr=2
003
>
>
>
> "The administration is trying to push an agenda of access fees on
> public lands," said Jon Orlando of the Arizona No Fee Coalition,
> "What's happening is the Forest Service has found a creative way to
> push the program without having to go through Congress."
>
> PIGGYBACK PASSPORTS
>
> That "creative" vehicle is a new national pass system that piggybacks
> off passports for national parks and other federal lands.
>
> Starting in mid-April, the $65 Golden Eagle Passport and related
> passes will also be good at Forest Service day-use attractions where
> fees are charged, such as national forest hiking trails in the
> Northwest and Southern California, the Mount St. Helens National
> Volcanic Monument and the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.
>
> "We think this is going to be responsive to what we are hearing from
> people. They want simplicity. They want convenience. And they want
> value," said Teri Cleeland, who oversees the recreation fee
> demonstration program for the Forest Service.
>
> "We want to respond to what we have heard from the public and Congress
> so we can gain a permanent program. We think this is a big step in
> that direction."
>
> Orlando, the statewide coordinator for the anti-fee coalition based in
> Flagstaff, said the Forest Service is trying to build public support
> for fee demo programs such as the Red Rock Passport by "re-feathering"
> the Golden Eagle Passport.
>
> "This is being sold as an efficient way to help the public. But it's a
> backdoor, behind-the-scenes way of making fee demo permanent," said
> Orlando.
>
> The Arizona No Fee Coalition and other groups such as the Western
> Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado are part of a national effort
> lobbying Congress to scuttle the fees in 2004.
>
> "Public lands suddenly become a possession through this program of the
> land management agencies, and not the public," said Rob Funkhouser,
> president of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition in Colorado. "The
> Forest Service has got its spurs on about the program no matter what
> Congress or the public thinks."
>
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
>
> The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
> to be by the people, for the people.
> Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
> double taxation forest fee demo program.
> I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
> are active users of the public lands.
>
> I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
> Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
> give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
> or favor the Forest Fee program.
>
> Interesting. But I did find this on their
> website:
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69
>
> It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
> thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.
>
> And here is another thing I found. The
> BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
> peercent of California (according to them) is
> protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
> would add 2.5 million acres.
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97
>
> My question is why are they so concerned?
> It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
> could see their case if the total was approaching
> 50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
> a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
> refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
> areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
> motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
> think at the end of all this you have to ask
> yourself who benefits. And you will see who
> does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.
>
>
> Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
> a link for minig? Hmmm..
>
> I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
> What is a mining link doing on their site?
>
>
> http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm
>
> (look under "M")
>
>
> Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:
>
>
> http://www.wildernessreform.com/
>
>
> The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
> webpage is this quote:
>
> " Finally we are going to do something about
>
> the Wilderness Act".
>
> It appears this group supports building new r
> oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
> for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
> Thats right, the propose building new roads
> for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
> Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
> Wilderness, and other national treasures.
> While they appear to be a access/recreation
> group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
> towards the end of their explanation.
>
> "The Coalition supports the creation of committees
> composed of locally-based federal and state
> resource managers, local governments, local economic
> interests and local citizens which will initiate a
> process to override the basic non-management
> directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "
>
>
> Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
> like Bush's "Charter Forests"?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
> A27700-2002Feb5.html
>
>
> Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'
>
>
> More from WARC:
>
> "Developing a mechanism to permit active
> resource management in wilderness areas to
> achieve a wide range of public benefits
> and to respond to local needs"
>
>
> Bush supports Forest Fees
> http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
> asp?no=2317
>
>
>
> So far here we have some very interesting
> findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
> concerned with resource extraction. We have
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
> born on recreation access by its members, not
> opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
> the Bush administration echoing these same
> things. The question is, who benefits? Where
> does the money trail lead? The answer is
> pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
> industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
> industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
> Thats right.
>
>
> Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?
>
> http://www.freeourforests.org
>
> American recreation coalition
>
> This is the group that started the whole "Pay-Us-for-Using-Your-Own-Land"
issue. Representing the recreation industry, they are trying to drive public
policy toward a "pay to play" system. Ultimately, this system could be used
to restrict access to most public lands, except on developed properties
managed by ARC members. It's membership consists of snowmobile, jetski, and
RV manufacturers, oil companies, ski associations, campgrounds, and Disney.
Of special interest is their spin-off Recreation Roundtable consisting of
recreation industry and media industry CEO's. The ARC and the Recreation
Roundtable helped design and implement the Adventure Pass. To get a more
detailed look at the ARC's agenda, read an interview with the ARC's
President conducted by a reporter for Motor Home Magazine, the journal of
the Good Sam Club (a sustaining member of the ARC).
>
>
> September 2, 1998
> The Honorable Dan Glickman
> Secretary of Agriculture
> Washington, DC 20250
>
> Dear Mr. Secretary:
>
> The Forest Service hosts more than 900 million visitors annually -
visitors who are seeking outstanding recreation experiences. The recreation
community recognizes that providing quality recreation experiences requires
substantial resources and, as a result, we have been active in proposing and
supporting new recreation fee authority for the Forest Service. We are very
pleased that the National Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, which is the
direct result of our efforts, will produce more than $150 million this year
in new receipts for the four agencies covered, including an estimated $20
million for the Forest Service.
>
> Although the recreation community's support for the National Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program is strong, it is also conditioned on the
Congressional pledge to treat new fee income as real gains for the Forest
Service recreation program, without any offset from appropriations. We
believe that the Congress is keeping this commitment. We are gratified that
the Administration, as well, has resisted using the new revenues to argue
for spending reductions on recreation programs - although OMB explored doing
just that early in the FY99 budget process.
>
> Despite this success, the recreation community remains concerned about the
Forest Service's recreation-program resources. Our inquiries about the
recreation budgets of key ranger districts have produced evidence that the
resources available to them have been falling, even when the Forest
Service's recreation budget is increasing nationally. It appears that the
grassroots recreation efforts are suffering from being at the end of the
"feeding chain," left with what remains after deductions for
telecommunications improvements, overhead assessments at the national,
regional and forest supervisor levels, and more.
>
> Mr. Secretary, we have appreciated your personal support for recreation
programs in the National Forests and the efforts you, Under Secretary Lyons
and Chief Dombeck have made to strengthen these programs. However, we are
asking you to make a visible and important commitment to those programs for
the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 1998, a commitment that the actual
recreation budgets for each ranger district will increase - at minimum - by
the same percentage that the national recreation program is increased in
your final budget, exclusive of fee demonstration program receipts. We
believe that a true increase in funding at the district level will help the
Forest Service begin to address the serious deterioration in the recreation
infrastructure and, once again, provide the kind of recreation experiences
on the National Forests that the American people seek and deserve.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kampgrounds of America Delaware North Companies
> Times Mirror Magazines REI
> Jayco L.L. Bean
> Westrec Marinas BOAT/U.S.
> Grady-White Boats Johnson Worldwide Associates
> Marathon Coach Outdoor Resorts of America
> The Walt Disney Company The Coleman Company
> B.A.S.S. Outboard Marine Corporation
> Harley Davidson
>
>
> American Recreation Coalition (ARC) Works For All of Us
>
> By: Dave Humphreys, President of RVIA and Chairman of ARC
>
> (Published October 1999)
>
>
> Today ARC is the focal point for outdoor recreation policy discussions and
decisions. RVDA is an active member of ARC, and RVDA President Mike Molino
serves on the ARC board of directors.
>
> Twenty years ago, a small band of recreation community leaders met in
Washington to discuss a better mechanism for combating serious public
attacks on recreation over energy use, financing and more. Within a month,
more than 20 organizations had committed to forming the American Recreation
Coalition.
>
> The accomplishments of the American Recreation Coalition since that time
have been notable and significant. Twenty years ago, the recreation
community had no voice in Washington. Today ARC is the focal point for
outdoor recreation policy discussions and decisions. We've moved from being
reactive, successfully blunting federal and state level actions threatening
recreation - like excise taxes on specific products or bans on weekend
boating - to being proactive, championing issues and actions, processes and
products that enhance outdoor recreation experiences in this country. And
along the way, we've developed working relationships with officials in the
legislative and executive branches of the federal government that are
nothing short of remarkable.
>
> Here are some of ARC's most notable achievements.
>
> The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (also known as the Wallop-Breaux Fund)
> Since the mid-80's, more than a billion dollars - generated by an excise
tax on fishing equipment and the return of a portion of motorboat fuel
taxes - have been spent to enhance boating and fishing opportunities. Last
year, ARC spearheaded the effort to strengthen that program significantly,
assuring more funds for boating safety and a new outreach program to help
more Americans enjoy leisure time on our public waters. That effort also
recovered an additional $135 million in boater fuel taxes for boating and
fishing enhancement.
>
>
> The National Scenic Byways Program
> ARC's efforts to bolster awareness and support for these special roads
resulted in the creation of byways programs by the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management and the establishment of a National Scenic Byways
Program. Today, 53 routes - showcased on the enclosed map that the Federal
Highway Administration has just published - have been designated All
American Roads or National Scenic Byways by the Secretary of Transportation.
In addition, more than $100 million in federal grants have been awarded to
enhance state scenic byways programs and specific byways.
>
>
> The Recreational Trails Program
> Since 1991, over $100 million in federal fuel taxes paid by off-road
recreation enthusiasts have been returned to the states for badly needed
trail construction and maintenance. With ARC's sustained support, this
program was appreciably strengthened last year and now receives markedly
higher, guaranteed funding. At the same time, communication and cooperation
within the trails community have dramatically improved.
>
>
> The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program
> First implemented in 1996 by the Congress at ARC's urging, this unique
program has helped alleviate serious shortfalls in funding for recreation
facilities and services on the public lands. By including the common-sense
requirement that fees be spent where they are collected, the program
generates some "-200 million in new funding for federal land-management'
agencies each year - and has just been extended through 2001.
>
>
> The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission
> For several years, ARC led the effort to establish a commission which
would be charged with finding ways to enhance recreation opportunities at
federally-managed, man-made lakes across the country. Finally created by
Congress in 1996 and officially launched by the President in 1998, the
commission is now wrapping up its work and is poised to recommend new
policies to dramatically increase recreational opportunities at hundreds of
these often under-utilized lakes.
>
> Clearly, ARC has been at the heart of public policy actions that will keep
the outdoors an important part of the American lifestyle long into the new
millennium. And other ongoing, ARC inspired initiatives, from Great Outdoors
Week to the work of the influential Recreation Roundtable, mean even greater
visibility - and clout - for the recreation community.
>
> As a member of the American Recreation Coalition, you should be very proud
of the accomplishments that your support has made possible. Unlike many
associations whose members are focused on the short-term benefits of
membership for their own organization, the members of the American
Recreation Coalition are focused on the big picture, the future and the
common interests of the recreation community. The results speak for
themselves. Twenty years after that first meeting, the American Recreation
Coalition and its members are recognized as thoughtful and effective
advocates for outdoor recreation. Such recognition does not mean that
challenges to outdoor recreation have disappeared. Far from it. However, it
does mean that the recreation community is well equipped to address those
challenges and transform them into opportunities. Thank you for your part in
this wonderful success story.
>
>
> Lobbyists, such as Derrick Crandall, President of the American Recreation
Coalition, are speaking in support of pay-to-play, commercial, recreation on
our National Forests and in our National Parks. Unfortunately Congress
appears to be listening to this lobbyists while it largely ignores the
American public.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Complete testimony can be read at
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/ag/hagFY1999.000/hagFY1999_0.HTM#94.
>
> OVERSIGHT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET FOR THE FOREST SERVICE
>
> THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998
>
> House of Representatives,
> Committee on Agriculture,
> Washington, DC.
>
> {snip}
>
> STATEMENT OF DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION
> Mr. CRANDALL. Thank you. I am delighted to be here representing the
American Recreation Coalition, which is a national federation of more than
100 organizations involved in meeting the recreation needs of Americans.
>
> Our industry each year generates some $400 billion in sales and touches
the lives of nearly every American. In fact, our data shows that 57 percent
of all Americans engage in outdoor recreation at least monthly; and upwards
of one in three Americans regularly recreate on our Federal lands.
>
> We certainly applaud the committee initiative in looking at the fiscal
year 1999 budget and going beyond the budget, looking at some of the broader
issues before you here today, including the oft-cited backlogs facing the
agency in recreation and roads and a seriously wrong trend in the agency's
budget.
>
> While recreation visits are climbing, the appropriated resources for
recreation programs at the district levels are shrinking rapidly. Visitors'
services and satisfaction appear to compete poorly against internal
priorities and end up with mere scraps.
>
> As the committee knows, the time is near when the national forests will
reach 1 billion recreation visits annually. These visits are by people
seeking many different kinds of experiences but they have a common purpose:
to enjoy time in an attractive and natural setting apart from the tensions
of our urbanized society.
>
> Their three core needs are good access, visitor facilities and services
designed to meet the needs of Americans living in increasingly urban
communities, and good management of the resources.
>
> Let me first address recreation infrastructure. The recreation facilities
in our national forests are not in good shape. While estimates of the
recreation facility backlog vary, the immediate need for capital investments
in campgrounds and trails, day use sites and visitors centers, interpretive
kiosks and other recreation facilities appears to be between $1 billion and
$2 billion. This does not include investment in new facilities designed to
meet higher levels of use today and expected higher levels in the future. In
fact, current levels of appropriations are exacerbating, not eradicating
this backlog.
>
> The goal set forth in the draft RPA program document 2 years ago was for
55 percent of all recreation visits in the national forests to occur at
sites that meet agency quality standards, and that will prove very
optimistic at the current rate.
>
> Let me just digress by saying that any recreation company which set a goal
of 55 percent of its products working right or 55 percent of its restrooms
being clean and operational would not make to it to the new millennium.
Disney emphasizes that it takes 31 magic moments to undo the damage of a
single tragic moment. The Forest Service, too, needs to set its focus on 100
percent satisfaction of guest expectations and, with good partners, that
goal can be achieved.
>
> A first step is a very different attitude towards capital budget needs.
For reconstruction of worn-out campgrounds and boat ramps, beaches and trail
heads, we urge the Congress to direct the agency to look at the private
sector. Through an extension of the term of permits, the agency can persuade
current and future recreation service partners to invest in water systems
and restrooms, parking areas and much more just as is done today at ski
areas.
>
> The agency has investigated this opportunity for years. It is now time to
move on the concept, and we call upon the Congress to authorize a concession
demonstration program in the spirit of the now under way recreation fee
demonstration program.
>
> Yet investments by concessionaires and permittees is not sufficient to
meet the needs of the Forest Service recreation program backlog. The agency
must address a dearth of business expertise in its operations. Efficient use
of capital must be an agency goal in project design, construction and
operation.
>
> Let me turn to road infrastructure.
>
> Unfortunately, the recreation backlog is dwarfed by the magnitude of the
forest road system backlog. The backlog for needed reconstruction of
arterial and collector roads alone, some 85,000 miles out of a system of
some 400,000 miles, is reported as $10.5 billion. The agency is responsible
for 7,000 bridges, of which 940 are currently rated as deficient; and only
40 of these bridges are being replaced annually. The lack of investment is
already creating a loss of access to forest roads and posing significant
safety issues.
>
> I express concern regarding a plan that would target a goal of 55 percent
compliance with agency quality standards for recreation. That goal is a
shining star compared to the goal for the future of the road program. The
agency projects meeting just 40 percent of its maintenance needs for
arterial and collector roads, and that is simply unacceptable.
>
> In the last 3 fiscal years, as you heard the Chief testify, the agency
reports a drop in its arterial and corridor mileage of nearly 10 percent.
This drop is not because these roads no longer lead to trail heads and
campgrounds, lakes and other recreation destinations. It is a reflection of
the reclassification of these routes as now requiring the use of
high-clearance vehicles for safe passage. This closure of routes by default
and not by design cannot continue.
>
> Today's forest roads are largely the product of the agency's past timber
production history. The Congress and the administration have yet to look at
the long-range road needs of the forests. What is clear is that total forest
road spending is declining, going from some $600 million annually in the
mid-1980s to less than $250 million in 1998.
>
> We believe that a forest transportation strategy is essential, and we urge
that a portion of the receipts of the Highway Trust Fund be earmarked to
forest roads. In part, this logic arises from the national responsibility
that we bear for providing access to the forest, but it is also based on the
fact that millions of dollars in Federal fuel taxes are paid by those 1.7
million vehicles per day using the forest roads.
>
> We are aware that the administration envisions an aggressive
decommissioning of roads in the forests based upon environmental and fiscal
costs. The recreation community does not necessarily oppose some road
closures, provided that access to recreation sites in the forests are not
significantly impaired.
>
> What we have called for, instead, is to emphasize an ambitious Roads to
Trails Initiative funded in part through recreation fees and through
cooperative agreements with States like California's Green Sticker Program
and a Road Banking Program. Under road banking, local routes might be
obliterated visually but retained legally, recognizing that the routes might
once again become important for recreation, timber or other purposes at a
later time.
>
> Finally, let me address the Recreation Program budget.
>
> I have attached as Attachment A some numbers that show what has happened
in the recreation field over the last 11 years. The Forest Service
Recreation Program has not fared well in recent years. As the recreation
task of the agency has grown in size and complexity, the agency's
appropriated revenues for recreation have declined in current dollars and
are now well below levels provided in the early 1990s.
>
> Even removing the capital budget component boosted under the Bush
administration's Great Outdoors Initiative with the help of this committee,
the O&M budget in fiscal year 1993 was just $261 million versus $218 million
in the current fiscal year.
>
> The impact on the ground has been dramatic. We spot-checked 10 key
recreation-heavy districts across the Nation, and we found that many
reported a decline in Recreation Program budgets of 50 percent or more
between fiscal year 1991 and today. None of the districts we contacted
reported an increase in appropriated funding for recreation. It appears that
50 percent or less of the funds appropriated by Congress actually reach the
forest district level.
>
> Where is the money appropriated by Congress for recreation programs
actually being spent and how can a quality recreation program exist under
these conditions?
>
> We find that a substantially higher portion of congressional
appropriations for recreation appear to be vanishing before hitting the
ground today than ever before. Our attempts to investigate don't give us a
clear picture as to where that money is going.
>
> We also believe that the Recreation Program is shouldering an unfair
higher share of general administrative costs at the regional and forest
levels based upon the time actually invested in recreation programs by
individuals at the regional and forest level.
>
> We ask the help of this committee to engage in further investigation of
this issue and invite the Forest Service leadership to commit to sustaining
in the field recreation efforts that reflect congressional appropriations.
>
> The second question I would ask is why we don't come before this body to
proclaim a crisis is at hand. The answer is that countless men and women of
the Forest Service and allies who share their love of the national forests
have responded to declining appropriated funds creatively through the
challenge cost share program and concessions campgrounds and with agreements
with State and local agencies which have literally generated millions of
dollars in funds to be spent on national forests. And through the effective
utilization of volunteers, the Recreation Program in some forest districts
is today outstanding.
>
> We have now become a fan of programs which deliver maximum new resources
to grass-roots level Forest Service officials. The recreation fee
demonstration program is important and correctly designed in this regard.
Eighty percent of all receipts are retained locally at the collection site.
We think the fee demonstration program encourages agency staff to look to
partners and customers to pay for recreation services.
>
> As an industry, we believe that Americans are willing to pay for quality
in their recreation. Our companies-Disney, Coleman, L.L. Bean-have learned
that lesson for generations.
>
> Mr. Chairman, the recreation community loves America's national forests
and looks to the Forest Service as a friend. It deserves the support of the
American public and of this committee. We ask your help in three areas:
>
> First, we ask you to urge support for Recreation Program spending for
operations and maintenance at or above fiscal year 1993 levels in constant
dollars.
>
> Second, we support appropriations for the National Forest Road Program of
at least $300 million, minus any timber purchase or credits.
>
> And, third, we support a concessions demonstration program which we
believe can make a significant impact on the recreation facility backlog.
>
> [The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.]
>
>
>
> ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
> They are a large group of corporations.
> Arc has currently been caught bragging about
> how theycreated the Fee Demo program:
>
> These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
> But when put together, and in favor of charging
> money to US taxpayers to use their public
> lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
> lands and our use of them.
>
>
> Bush's domestic issues advisor,
> Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:
>
>
> The Bush administration, along with Terry
> L Anderson are planning to turn our national
> parks over to corporate control.
>
>
>
> GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
> AUCTION OFF ALL
> FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
> Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to
>
> George W. Bush Jr., has
> proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
> federal public lands in
> the
> U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
> incudes every National
> Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
> it also includes
> every National Park and Monument. Under his
> proposal, non-profit
> environmental groups could bid on the free
> market against the likes of
> Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge, or against
> Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
> Park, or against Phelps Dodge
> to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
> bets on how the bidding will
> go?
> Anderson is closely associated with several
> conservative think tanks
> pushing for the privatization and/or
> commercialization of public lands.
> He is the director of the Political Economy
>
> Research Center, a senior
> fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
> website links to the Thoreau
> Institute which has proposed, among other
> nonsense, to privatize
> ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
> proposal was published by
> the CATO institute and can be viewed at
> <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
> Anderson freely admits that his corporate
> take-over agenda would be
> wildly unpopular with the American public.""
>
>
> If you go to the link you can see it is published
> in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
> wing study corp.
>
>
>
> So what we have here is the Bush administration,
> the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
> Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
> corporations trying to wrestle control of the
> public lands to private enterprises for private
> profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
> our public lands. This is a bad thing for
> every single user of public lands from a tree
> hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
> to a hunter or a fisherman.
>
> It is time to see through the fronts, the
> lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
> eye out so our easily accesible public lands
> arent gone forever.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> You Rock! Your E-mail should, too. Visit Rock.com!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
