T
TFinalshot
Guest
REC FEES USED TO CLOSE CAMPGROUNDS, LIMIT ACCESS
Now We Know Where the RAT Goes
By Bill Schneider, 2-10-07
I've written extensively about RAT, the Recreation Access Tax, created by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, and how agencies, particularly the Forest Service (FS) have been recently aggressive in charging new fees and increasing existing fees. While reading some of these articles, you may have wondered where all this money goes. I, for one, assumed it goes to enhance recreational facilities on our national forests, but no. It's going to limit recreational facilities on our national forests.
In a high-level meeting among FS bosses held in January, John Pasquantino, lead OMB budget analyst for the FS, said he has made $93 million in recreation fee revenue available to the forests to implement the much-maligned Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RSFMP) process. That $93 million is basically all the recreation fees collected in all national forests for two whole years.
How's that for irony? We pay fees at toll booths to enter our national forests and feed “Iron Rangers” to park at trailheads and the FS uses our money to close, privatize, or “demonstrate” (i.e. start charging fees) campgrounds, trailhead parking lots, and picnic areas.
Why is the FS using recreation fees to close campgrounds? According to Pasquantino, “it's logical, transparent, and makes sense.”
I don't know about you, but for me, his logic is too complex to understand.
Does spending fee money on RFSMP really fit with the spirit of the law the FS uses to charge fees, the Federal Lands Enhancement Act? The key word, of course, being "enhancement.”
"
As a disclaimer, this information comes to us from the notes of Sherry Wagner, who works as Director of Communications and Government Relations for the FS's eastern region. Her notes may not be exact quotes from people at the meeting, but knowing government at this level, I have to say her notes must closely capture the spirit and essence of the meeting. Otherwise, she wouldn't have circulated them. Fortunately, she did. Otherwise, we might not know where RAT revenue goes. A copy of her notes ended up in the hands of Robert Funkhouser of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. His response? "It's like having to buy the rope they use to hang you."
The FS may argue that the purpose of the RSFMP process is not to limit recreation access and facilities, but they must have a hard time saying this with a straight face because that's the result of the plans so far.
Interestingly, at the same meeting, Jim Bedwell, Director of Recreation and Heritage Resources for the FS admitted that RSFMP "has been framed around there's not enough money, so what can we shut down." Even if those weren't his exact words, we get the picture, Jim.
Launched in secrecy back in 2002, RSFMP has only recently been revealed, and not by the FS, I might add. And is anybody surprised that a secret process intended to close or limit access to thousands of recreational facilities would be controversial? As soon as word seeped out, the FS held a high level meeting and decided to "pause" the process while a public involvement process solicited comments from national forest users. This means, of course, as it always does, that after 90 percent of the comments oppose the intent and result of RSFMP, the FS will do it anyway. (Witness the recent revelation that the FS is still going ahead with plans to sell off large chunks of the national forests after 99 percent of comments opposed it.)
Keep in mind that over the past ten years, the FS's recreation budget has increased 22 percent, but national forests are still starved for money to manage and maintain recreational facilities. Fee income is supposed to replace budget shortfalls, but instead it's going to a pricey planning process that will probably be shelved soon and become nothing more than another example of government waste.
I suppose the federal government does not consider $93 million a significant sum when the Defense Department just misplaced $12 billion in cash on its way to Iraq, but I'm going out on a limb and predict that to the folks who built up that $93 million by forking $5 or $10 every time they tried to go out on their own land for a little outdoor fun, it seems significant.
Now We Know Where the RAT Goes
By Bill Schneider, 2-10-07
I've written extensively about RAT, the Recreation Access Tax, created by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, and how agencies, particularly the Forest Service (FS) have been recently aggressive in charging new fees and increasing existing fees. While reading some of these articles, you may have wondered where all this money goes. I, for one, assumed it goes to enhance recreational facilities on our national forests, but no. It's going to limit recreational facilities on our national forests.
In a high-level meeting among FS bosses held in January, John Pasquantino, lead OMB budget analyst for the FS, said he has made $93 million in recreation fee revenue available to the forests to implement the much-maligned Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RSFMP) process. That $93 million is basically all the recreation fees collected in all national forests for two whole years.
How's that for irony? We pay fees at toll booths to enter our national forests and feed “Iron Rangers” to park at trailheads and the FS uses our money to close, privatize, or “demonstrate” (i.e. start charging fees) campgrounds, trailhead parking lots, and picnic areas.
Why is the FS using recreation fees to close campgrounds? According to Pasquantino, “it's logical, transparent, and makes sense.”
I don't know about you, but for me, his logic is too complex to understand.
Does spending fee money on RFSMP really fit with the spirit of the law the FS uses to charge fees, the Federal Lands Enhancement Act? The key word, of course, being "enhancement.”
"
As a disclaimer, this information comes to us from the notes of Sherry Wagner, who works as Director of Communications and Government Relations for the FS's eastern region. Her notes may not be exact quotes from people at the meeting, but knowing government at this level, I have to say her notes must closely capture the spirit and essence of the meeting. Otherwise, she wouldn't have circulated them. Fortunately, she did. Otherwise, we might not know where RAT revenue goes. A copy of her notes ended up in the hands of Robert Funkhouser of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. His response? "It's like having to buy the rope they use to hang you."
The FS may argue that the purpose of the RSFMP process is not to limit recreation access and facilities, but they must have a hard time saying this with a straight face because that's the result of the plans so far.
Interestingly, at the same meeting, Jim Bedwell, Director of Recreation and Heritage Resources for the FS admitted that RSFMP "has been framed around there's not enough money, so what can we shut down." Even if those weren't his exact words, we get the picture, Jim.
Launched in secrecy back in 2002, RSFMP has only recently been revealed, and not by the FS, I might add. And is anybody surprised that a secret process intended to close or limit access to thousands of recreational facilities would be controversial? As soon as word seeped out, the FS held a high level meeting and decided to "pause" the process while a public involvement process solicited comments from national forest users. This means, of course, as it always does, that after 90 percent of the comments oppose the intent and result of RSFMP, the FS will do it anyway. (Witness the recent revelation that the FS is still going ahead with plans to sell off large chunks of the national forests after 99 percent of comments opposed it.)
Keep in mind that over the past ten years, the FS's recreation budget has increased 22 percent, but national forests are still starved for money to manage and maintain recreational facilities. Fee income is supposed to replace budget shortfalls, but instead it's going to a pricey planning process that will probably be shelved soon and become nothing more than another example of government waste.
I suppose the federal government does not consider $93 million a significant sum when the Defense Department just misplaced $12 billion in cash on its way to Iraq, but I'm going out on a limb and predict that to the folks who built up that $93 million by forking $5 or $10 every time they tried to go out on their own land for a little outdoor fun, it seems significant.
