By Bob Difley
Spending on outdoor recreation in America tops one trillion dollars. Much of this recreation is on public lands. That’s a lot of money. But most of this money is spent with outfitters, at ski resorts, and other developed recreation venues. Then there are the public lands that RVers–especially boondockers–use. For camping, hiking, fishing, bird and wildlife watching, photography, and snoozing in a camp chair.
Visitation to America’s public lands have increased over the past couple decades–65% on BLM lands, 80% on National Wildlife Refuges. According to those that oversee public lands, “This increase in visitation means an increase in visitor demand for adequate facilities and services, as well as a greater need to expend funds to protect natural and cultural resources, the resources that are often the very reason visitors are drawn to a particular site. . . . and often expect amenities such as toilets, developed parking, water, and maintained trails. Recreation fees allow the agencies to meet this visitor demand.”
Fees are justified for necessary services, amenities, and maintenance, such as operations and cleaning of forest service campgrounds (though that can be done with volunteers instead of leasing to for-profit concessionaires and doubling or tripling camping fees), placing restrooms in heavily used areas, and maintaining and signing trails.
However, who determines, and on what basis, whether there is sufficient “visitor demand for adequate facilities and services” to add “improvements” which then qualify the site for the collection of more fees? And where is the line drawn for what is a congressional mandate to provide for publicly funded (taxes we already pay) recreation and additional fees that can be initiated by individual forest supervisors for their own uses? (See last week’s post on Senator Baucus’s senate bill to repeal the current act and reinstate the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 for funding pubic recreation.)
Many of us head for the un-developed areas, away from the crowds, where we can get closer to unspoiled nature. But the current Fee Enhancement Act allows the forest service to implement fees where there are amenities or improvements, which means for example, that you can be charged a fee where the FS placed a minimal sign at a trailhead, or any of several minor improvements they can make to justify charging a fee, none of which may be wanted or needed.
When the act became law in 2005, the government responded to these questions with, “We understand that our visitors seek a broad range of experiences when they choose to visit
their federal lands. For this reason, the vast majority of sites will continue to remain fee free under the Act (my emphasis). Even under the broad authority of the Fee Demo program:
- 89 percent of BLM sites do not charge Fee Demo fees;
- 78 percent of FWS sites open to visitation do not charge Fee Demo fees;
- 75 percent of all Forest Service sites do not charge Fee Demo fees; and
- 40 percent of all NPS sites do not charge Fee Demo fees.
These percentages are not expected to change significantly under the Act (again my emphasis). In addition, the Act also contains specific prohibitions for the Forest Service and BLM, including certain prohibitions for fees for general access, dispersed areas with no or low investments, undesignated parking, picnicking, overlooks or scenic pullouts” (my strong emphasis).
So tell me, is that what you are finding when you visit our public lands?
Oh, and when you have a chance, take a look at my eBook, BOONDOCKING: Finding the Perfect Campsite on America’s Public Lands, a guide to using your RV to find camping freedom.
Pingback: my homepage
terryd
I see FS and NPS in different areas of the country, even different regions of the same areas managing differently. And in fact, some FS areas DO sell timber harvesting rights to commercial interests if it is deemed in the best interest to forest conservation…Interesting that some of you report water in restrooms in FS camps. We don’t see that at all;in fact one that we frequent yearly got state-of-the-art pit toilets new last year with signs proclaiming them to be funded with federal Simulus Funding, not user fees or FS funding. Still no water for handwashing away from your camp, but the only drinking water pumps were 10 feet from these toilets. These new toilets decreased the number of toilets by 2/3 available to the campground. They were not maintained any better by the concessionaire, nor were the concessionaire employees particularly disturbed by complaints of filth and lack of paper, even though there were holders for double rolls, there were never double rolls supplied, even on busy weekends. One employee even suggested that most campers had their own stashes of paper, and suggested that people had trashed the toilets on purpose. Concessionaires did not clean on weekends, nor campsites between campers moving in and out. We had to ask for a scoop for the firepit when we moved in. We witnessed campers relieving themselves, and helping children do so, outside, rather than enter the reeking, filthy, brand new facilities. While many RV’s are self-contained, this FS camp does not have any dump facility either, so most use the camp latrines if they are there for any length of time. Many tenters and other types of campers without water use campgrounds of course. I relate this not as a general complaint on fee structure, but to illuminate how FS has abdicated management of campgrounds. I imagine the cost to them to administer the programs of using concessionaires probably costs them as much or more than it used to to run the campgrounds themselves or as it would now if they used volunteer hosts and summer student rangers and a ranger supervisor. And there IS a ranger supervisor still in place. Concessionaires have only added a couple of layers of bureaucracy to the structure. The NPS seems to be using volunteers to cut down on employees. That can only be win-win, in general. The FS needs to look at what is working elsewhere, rather than trying to raise fees. I hope they don’t have to create a task force to study it.
Geoffrey Pruett
A few years (decades) ago good old reactionary Oregon changed our state constitution such that all (yes really!) gasoline/diesiel road taxes can be spent in a 3 step fashion:
(1) Road repairs
(2) Roadside parks/rest stops
(3)Highway patrol
Ideal situation, Not! Our spineless legislators have not increased fuel taxes in 30 years. Look at it this way, the vehicle you drive today weighs more, gets better mileage and is probably on the road more. So the few road repairs being done are done with a lot of fictitious dollars. Get real! Every department dealing in “State/Federal” services funds the office first, actual work second using less dollars each year. We have gone for 50 years pushing payment due forward, the bill is coming due! Park fees are going up, this does not raise my blood pressure, the way they are being applied may! Make noise, all agencies have “contact us” email addresses and whether they like them or not they become public record.
Bob Difley
Fred Cory says, “Fees for state and national parks and preserves is not a hardship for us. In fact, we have found these to be far better than most public and private campgrounds for cleanliness, amenities and environment. The staff is more attentive, security is better through the Ranger network, and the cost per night is far-far less expensive.
National ParK campgrounds are cared for much better than Forest Service campgrounds and prices are reasonable for what you get. NPs are also forbidden to charge additional fees for a lot of what the FS has been permitted, which is where my complaint is. If the FS had their act together as much as the NP system, that would be an enormous step up. And often you find camping fees at NF campgrounds higher than at NP, which have a a whole lot more infrastructure, programs, maintenance, etc.
Caravan Sites in the Uk
This is a trend thats becoming more and more common in the Uk, this article really gave me lots to think about.
Fred Cory
In today’s economy we are all too often prone to complain about conditions and expenses that never before used to bother us. Fees for state and national parks and preserves is not a hardship for us. In fact, we have found these to be far better than most public and private campgrounds for cleanliness, amenities and environment. The staff is more attentive, security is better through the Ranger network, and the cost per night is far-far less expensive. OK, so we have to use a dump station on the way out. BIG DEAL!
We save enough money on nightly stays that it pays for our fuel. It has been over a year since we stayed at a KOA, for example. I have a lifetime National Parks Senior Pass ($10 one time fee) that is good anywhere and cuts the nightly cost in half. This means that overnight stays cost us generally between $10-$24 per night. Try getting that at a commercial campground.
The fees for our government facilities – no problem so far. We save that much and more and have a nice scenic, well maintained, secure place to camp.
Off again to two more national parks for a week and lovin’ it.
Fred Cory
In today’s economy we are all too often prone to complain about conditions and expenses that never before used to bother us. Fees for state and national parks and preserves is not a hardship for us. In fact, we have found these to be far better than most public and private campgrounds for cleanliness, amenities and environment. The staff is more attentive, security is better through the Ranger network, and the cost per night is far-far less expensive. OK, so we have to use a dump station on the way out. BIG DEAL!
We save enough money on nightly stays that it pays for our fuel. It has been over a year since we stayed at a KOA, for example. I have a lifetime National Parks Senior Pass ($10 one time fee) that is good anywhere and cuts the nightly cost in half. This means that overnight stays cost us generally between $10-$24 per night. Try getting that at a commercial campground.
The fees for our government facilities – no problem so far. We save that much and more and have a nice scenic, well maintained, secure place to camp.
Off again to two more national parks for a week and lovin’ it.
Manuel Enos
For those of us who like to RV and use state and federal lands, it does not upset us that fees are increasing – what upset us is the level of care to our public lands does not go along with the increases. Just spent 4 days at a federal park close to my home in Florida – it was the pits!! The US FOREST service had succeeded in running off the remaining camp host and their maintenance man quit due to harresement also..Park is on a slow down hill plunge into oblivion. My belief is that they have another use for this area and want to close it due to people not coming anymore so they will just back off the services until that happens…Sad but that is my conclusion..
Joe
I can see where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure I agree. Without wading too far into the political swamp, there is a large portion of federal spending that no one is paying for right now (adding to debt).
I guess it comes down to this – do you think federal lands already have plenty of money to meet their mission and provide for public enjoyment. If not, who should pay for it? Some guy from downtown Chicago who will never visit or the people who actually use the services?
In my neck of the woods (NC), Forest Service lands have increased fees, and there are typically signs near the fee box telling users that the money stays in that particular park and even outlining what past funds have been used for (parking lot paving to prevent erosion, updated bathrooms with water conserving fixtures, etc…).
I have also seen local forest users get upset when a fee area (I’m thinking of trails in this case) isn’t maintained to a reasonable standard. By saying ‘hey managers, we’re paying fees for this and you’re not holding up your end of the bargain’, they were able to get some nice results. In the past the answer has been ‘complain to your congressman, we didn’t get the budget we asked for this year. We’ll try again next year.’
I guess the forest service could always sell timber rights to raise money. Would that be a better option?
Gary
Forest service fees ( where determined to be “necessary”) do not reflect the actual usage of an area. As a handicapped individual, I pay half fees. That is good. For if I had to pay full fees, I could not visit. Yes, there is a toilet, with water, for an area of 40 camps, but most use a pit toilet as they are better located. Unless they are “flooded” and not usable. Nothing is much worse than to uas a toilet, open, yet unmarked, and have it splash back onto your butt. Then a whole area was w/o water. When questioned the response was ” been looking at that”. Ten campsites fully unusable. Yet, full fee charged. Boat ramp so bad as to not hardly be usable. Many boat trailers stuck. I could go on, but this is only an example. Fees, w/o care, are bad and hurt the F.S. very much. Attitudes suck!!
Bob Difley
Joe – Most of those services that you mention are paid for by our taxes and are part of what the congress is mandated to provide funding for recreation in America. That’s why there are rangers and other personnel that are employees of the forest service and BLM. I question whether it is disengenuous–or maybe even illegal–to provide methods for those agencies to raise their own funds through these user fees and then when congress notices that they can raise money, they take the money that would have–and was designated for–funding these agencies for something else. At a minimum, we the taxpayers are being hoodwinked–and double taxed.
Joe
I hear you on the frustration with fees.
Still, do you really think you’re not using any services when you head an undeveloped area? How do you get to that undeveloped area – on a road? Even a dirt road didn’t get there by itself and requires maintenance.
What happens when a boondocker has a medical emergency like a heart attack? Is it Ok to just leave them there because there wasn’t any money for emergency services?
You know some people aren’t going to be responsible and will leave a mess of trash, beer cans, or a fire pit. Is it fine to leave that in the wilderness, or do we appreciate that someone comes in and cleans up behind irresponsible campers.
All of that costs money.
Even if you drive in, keep to yourself, and pack everything out, you may be using more services than you think.