Access Fee?

DIY

Active Member
Messages
129
Ok, just sitting here at work killing time waiting for a hydro test to come off on a section of Pipeline. Got to thinking about this selling off of the public lands, or giving them back to the states within which they lie. What the Federal Government states is that the cost of being the stewards of these lands is becoming a burden on there budget. So what is the course of action that they feel is needed to bring the public lands money pit to a resolution. Get rid of these unwanted lands. Give them to the states or sell them off to corporate America. Here is where I say BS. I have seen hundreds of thousands of acres of great hunting lands sold to the likes of Exxon, Mobil and Union Oil for a dollar an acre. If you want to check this number go ahead, it is the price they paid in the name of keeping America in oil back in the late 70's and early 80's. Did they use the land, oh yeah they did for about 5 years then they ceased operations on these lands. Though they still own the land and have you and me locked out forever.
So maybe it is time to institute some type of federal land access fee to the users of these lands. I myself would pay an annual access fee if it meant that my public lands stayed just that, PUBLIC LANDS. So you say that we already in essence pay an access fee by paying our taxes. You are correct. Take a look at the new urban highway model, it is made up of toll roads that are paid for with tax dollars, however in order to use that road you have to pay a toll. Not much push back from the urban dwellers for that when they can get some where faster. I say lets institute an annual federal lands access pass to fund the preservation of our national heritage. Ear mark those money's to only to be used for the maintenance and preservation of those lands. Yes we would have to pass legislation to protect those dollars from the crooks in the beltline from robbing the fund. That can and has been done. These funds would be separate from fees collected through hunting and fishing permits. This would just be for the preservation of the public land to remain public. Believe me people would pay these fees if they knew it was the only way to keep greedy azzholes like Chaffetz from lining their pockets. Most people spend more at Starbucks in a week than what it would take to purchase a access fee to keep our lands, "Our Lands".
Just a thought, I told you I was bored.
 
Initial thought, that is a huge can of worms. Is one hobby going to be charged more than another (hunting vs biking), is it good for a week, month year.
Is it good for every state or just that state, is it good for every piece of land in state or just a certain region. Age limits to purchase or not.

Then you have to factor in all the costs associated to run this program and people to enforce it too. So now the cost went up again. So if they say they want $100/person you might as well figure it would cost $300/person to actually work. Then will the money actually go to public lands or will it be trimmed off for other programs.

If gov't would simply manage its budget and not spend money on stupid crap or over priced crap we'd be good.

Also, if gov't didn't have the dumb ass rule of forcing every organization to spend its money at end of fiscal year.
If there was a way to save that money or move it we'd be better off. Since working for the gov't as active duty Navy and contractor since 1999, the wasted money in the final 30 days of each fiscal year I have personally seen is RIDICULOUS! I am just a peon in this too, think of the billions wasted around the world every year to ensure each organization spends the money in their budget. Cause if 100% is not spent they get cut following year.

Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
 
Hunters in Utah already do this to access SITLA lands.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Believe me I agree, there is so much waste in the government it is a travesty. Every time I go to the store there seems to be that person in front of me pulling out their EBT card then goes out and gets in a newer car that what I drive. The easiest way to fix Washington is to institute term limits on ALL politicians. The those SOB cannot become so corrupt that they start thinking it is ok to steal from you and me. My point was and is, Hell yes I am willing to pay a yearly fee to keep our public lands public. Do I really want to pay more taxes, No. Most americans live life in a very narrow tunnel, and as long as their tunnel is not affected they are willing to look the other way. And that is where a lot of the problem lies.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-10-17 AT 05:57PM (MST)[p]I dang sure doen't want to pay more for use/access of public lands. I believe there is waste but I'm not sure they are wasting enough to make up the difference and grow the States income at the same time.

Don't want to pay one cent more....... but I will, and I believe every American needs to pay more as well, to keep these lands public. If the majority of the country want's to keep it public they need to pay more, every single, rich and poor, everybody. It's public land, the public needs to anti up more. If every tax payer had to pay a very small % more, the money issue would disappear.

If we, as American's owners of these public lands, can't pay the taxes or the equilixilent of the taxes on them, then the private sector is going to eventually get them

I don't any possible way to keep it public any other way.

The "piper" gets paid, sooner or later, the cost to operate a system will get paid, or the system will change.

Let's not change it, lets pay for what it costs to keep public.

DC
 
I have thought of this as well and I think it would actually work well for 5-10 years until everyone forgot about this current debacle we're in. Then these fees would start getting squandered on stupid government chit. They find loopholes in everything to funnel intended recourses to a politician's preference. We need to demand better with what we have. More taxes is NOT the answer and land transfer is even worse, but at least it has everyone talking about the issue.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-10-17 AT 06:57PM (MST)[p]These public lands are OUR lands. Who here owns a house? Do you mow the lawn? Fertilize your garden? Do you spray for bugs? Do you repair a leaking roof? Or do you let your lawn grow to weeds and die from lack of water? Do you let your roof leak and damage your home?

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think paying for the "upkeep" on OUR lands is a "Tax" which is unfair/unpatriotic/or whatever-catch-word makes a guy feel happy and "free". Then they turn around and use the lands. The people using the lands the most complain the loudest when hit with the possibility of paying something.

I'm all for a moderate fee-- say $100ish a year-- to support OUR lands.

And last I checked the push for State control of the Federal Lands isn't coming from the Feds because the lands cost too much. The push is coming from the State-- who want control and the ability to sell the lands.
 
If tomorrow I was king for a day and I gave all 23million acres of colorados public land to lumpy, diy, and packout free and clear and you never had to pay a nickel in property tax on your new found kingdom could you make a profit without a new tax? Could you improve those lands through a profitable timber harvest and reforestation program? The argument is always what do you do with a catastrophic wildfire? These wildfires are do to poor to no management and little harvest. Could you make a nickel with 23 million acres free and clear?
 
Well, I doubt I could. I don't have infrastructure to manage such a large scale, wide ranging area. If I could hire a few thousand people then I guess I could sell timber, grazing fees. I could charge people to hike, camp, hunt, fish, ride their atvs and horses, you know, some type of "Use" payment-- since it is mine. Since it is mine then I don't have to ask anyone how to manage it so I can do that however I want-- and you might not like it.

Then I'd have to pay the insurance, because surely some idiot will hurt himself while enjoying or trespassing on my new lands. I'd have to maintain the roads and trails for the people using it. I'd have to maintain rights of way for people to check on water rights. Spray for weeds. Fix fences. Fight wildfires. Install bathrooms. Maintain buildings. Man this is looking expensive. Then there are the campgrounds to maintain, signs to post, etc.... A lot to do that all costs $$$$$$.

Sounds like I should be charging a Use fee to those who want to enjoy the lands and the amenities found on them.....
 
Charge big oil, mining, timber, grazing, all commercial users much higher extractive/consumptive fees that accurately reflect the value of the resources being consumed, instead of subsidizing these industries via giveaway lease fees. Use that income to maintain public lands, pay down the debt, keep tRump in hair dye, etc.
 
I think we could, if we didn"t have Multiple Use regulations we were required to privide timber, mining, drilling, grazing on. And all at far cheaper rates that similar private properties cost to lease.

I like multiple use and I'm not opposed to raising fees to match private rates. If raising the rate is sufficient to pay the States what those land would generate if they were private, I'm good with not taxing Grandma and Uncle Ernest from New Jersey anymore than they are presently paying. If rate increases are not sufficient, then Grandma and Uncle, along with everyone else needs to make up what ever the difference is.

I'm all for demanding and getting more efficient use of every tax dollar by reducing waste and crazy regulations but how many times have we heard a Demo-it's or a Republi-can"t say they were going to fund a program with the increase garnered from improved efficiency, and how many times have they delivered?

If Pres. Trump cuts taxes and I hope to heck he does, do you think the Foesrt Service and the BLM will get more efficient?

Not me. I watch what happened under Reagan when he cut taxes. Grazing fees stayed way too low, oil leases stayed dirt cheap, lumber regulations got more restrictive and the States got zip out of public lands.

Call it a tax, call it a fee, call it an entitlement, call iit anything thing you want too but until these Western State get some equity out of the public land within their boundaries, these lsnd grabs, transfers, midnight monument deals will hit us over and over and over again, every time some slick talking Politician decides the stars are lined up again and he can ram it through.

The States will not let the Feds manipulate these lands, like that have been doing for the last 30 years and not push back.

The Federal government is causing these conflicts. As long as they keep at it, there will continue to be a reaction from the States.

This has zero to do with hunting and fishing in spite of how it affects us, one way or the other. We are a side show of little consequence to either side. We have been and will continue to be thrown in any and every direction, at the whim of more powerful forces.

DC
 
I have also thought about this. I would pay an access fee if it would keep public lands public. I already pay for a sticker/permit for my UTV on NF land where I hunt in WY. All Americans are paying for our public lands through taxes, but only a small fraction of Americans actually use these lands in any significant amount.
An access fee program would be less of a 'slippery slope' than the slope we are already on. It might even help stop the land transfer movement.
 
I think most hunters will answer yes to this question. We might complain a little, or wonder how and by whom it will be enforced. We might ask why not the birdwatchers or dog walkers or joy riders. But in the end we would suck it up and pay the fee because we hunters and fishermen ALWAYS PAY OUR OWN WAY. We pay for wildlife management now and we would pay for access to it then.
 
We already have lots of access fee areas on NF, day use fees, camping fees, fees to park at trail sites. Developed sites all have fees now. Some picnic areas even have fees, atv fees snow mobile fees etc..They are already out there.
 
It's not enough wytex, and what most here don't understand is it will never be enough.
 
DW I hate to be on the opposite side of this issue with you, I respect you and your view of the world.

Having said that, I agree with you and everyone that believes we are already over taxed, at every turn. So lets say we ignore these conflicts between the Feds. who are continually re-adjusting the use and management of the Multiple Use public lands, (for appeasement and national party votes) and the States, like Utah and Nevada that are well over half public lands. If we just ignore the conflict and tell everybody to just "F Off" where are we going to end up. Do you think of a second, the Feds or the States are going to just give up and back off, without a coming to a long term solutions.

We hate to deal with nasty, gut wrenching problems. We most always let them fester, until they are open wounds, then nobody will be rational. A great example is the American Civil War in 1861. The country ignored the slavery issue, from 1787 until 1861. It got ignored time and time again, intentionally, until the wound got so deep nothing short of armed conflict could resolve it. The Civil War was as much a States vs Federal Government conflict as it was slavery. These land control disputes eventually metastasize unless they get resolved.

So.....other than "F Off" what is the solution?

DC
 
Yes DW I believe that I could make a profit. Some of the things that I would do to support my 23 million acres is to start charging Oil and Gas companies a more fair few for the resources that they remove from "my" lands. Then charge timber companies a more honest fee, and part of there contract would include the reforestation of the land that they removed timber from. Then the ranchers would also have to pay a closer to real market value for there grazing rights. I was born and raised on a ranch that had a FS lease for grazing, and believe me they pay very little per pair for those rights. Am I going to run them out of business, no, however they are going to pay a much fairer price per pair. Then I would move on to the issue of what the general user should pay to help defray the cost of the upkeep of the lands. So it looks like some type of user fee would be instituted to cover the cost of keeping up the infrastructure. The big question is and will be how to enforce that kind of a broad reaching access fee. Oh I forgot about all the big mining companies that remove billions of dollars of minerals every year and pay nothing. That would end and I would grant no new claims that I the owner of "my" kingdom would not get a percentage. So believe me there are ways to pay for the upkeep of these lands. We just need to demand that the people in charge of these lands stop squandering it all away. Call it a tax, or call it a access fee, you would pay it, I would pay it. Make no mistake we sportsman have always carried the burden of using these lands. It is just time to get the bird watchers and the tree huggers to pay there share. This is just the tip of the ice burg per say.
 
Everybody thinks the forest service budget is not enough so charge an access fee and give them more money? NO! The budget they currently get is enough but they "fire barrow" their entire budget. Recourses that should go to law enforcement or road maintenance or preventative fire maintance get gobbled up every summer. You want to talk about waisted money look at a big fire. I'm not saying don't fight fires but do it proactively not reactively.
 
>Charge big oil, mining, timber, grazing,
>all commercial users much higher
>extractive/consumptive fees that accurately reflect
>the value of the resources
>being consumed, instead of subsidizing
>these industries via giveaway lease
>fees. Use that income to
>maintain public lands, pay down
>the debt, keep tRump in
>hair dye, etc.

Now we're talking.
 
Googling difference in royalty rates paid by oil/gas drillers on federal, state and public lands.
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...deral-oil-and-gas-royalty-and-revenue-reform/

In many instances, federal oil/gas leases pay HALF the royalties of state and private lands. What kind of management upgrades could USFS and BLM afford if their gas/oil lease revenue DOUBLED?

Who benefits most from these deeply discounted lease rates? And how much do they contribute to political campaigns?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-17 AT 06:43PM (MST)[p]
Lump, nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement from time to time. You and I tend to line up in the same direction on most issues, no shame in this one. I believe others have hit on what I was drivein at. Can you imagine the 25 yr old strugglein rancher readin my king for a day post? After he picked himself up off the floor he'd say "hell ya I could make a go with 23 million acres free and clear!" We just need fair market value for the resources we sell from the big boys, timber, mining, grazers, gas and oil. And lose the fear of utilizing those resources! (I know that was your point lump). In the end some of those costs will be past on to you and me. Those fees will be raised in time no matter what, why give them another fee to raise and squander when they have plenty to raise and squander as it is? All I'm sayin.
 
> "Who benefits most from these
>deeply discounted lease rates?"
>
> Your life and mine
>does not happen with out
>oil!

That is the least informed, most overused, indefensible and all-around chickensh!t excuse out there. It does not begin to address the giveaway subsidy rate that big oil/gas enjoy on federal lands. For every "oil and gas drilling feed my family" bumper sticker there are a hundred that say "oil and gas drilling and burning poisons my family," This discussion goes far beyond a sound byte from Exxon or BP.

If the resource is so vital, it does not need a government subsidy. Charge producers what it is worth on federal land, and what would happen? It would cost more so demand would go down, less would be exported, industry profits would be reduced, revenue from federal lands would increase sharply. We have plenty of oil/gas, let the market set the price and end discounted lease and royalty rate subsidies on federal lands. It is our oil and gas under our federal land, and we should be paid fairly for taking it. Why do the feds charge half the rate that the state of TX charges on its land? KOCH Bros and their ilk have bought your legislators.

If tRump is truly a businessman rather than a politician, he will attack the waste of government subsidies for gas/oil and agriculture, which are terrible for business but very handy politically. Don't hold your breath, he won't go near these subsidies. He owes too many good ol' boys. There is a sheep rancher in CO that gets over $1 million/year from the gov't for raisin less sheep than he would otherwise.

Of course we need oil, but that is the start of the discussion, not the end. Big oil has an admirable scam. People like you are convinced the industry has your back, so you half-heartedly defend the industry with a line from their truck decal. Not everyone is wearing that greasy ballcap. The majority of public landowners see past the royalty scam, and WE WANT FAIR MARKET ROYALTIES from public lands!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom