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.