APPENDIX II Additional Material Submitted for the Record United Mobile Sportfishermen. Inc. Member Organizations: Assateague Mobile Sportfishermen Cape Hatteras Anglers Club Cape Lookout Mobile Sportfishermen Great South Beach Mobile Sportfishermen Happy Hookers Fishing Club Hartford Surf Club Long Island Beach Buggy Association Nags Head Fishing Club New Jersey Beach Buggy Association North Carolina Beach Buggy Association Affiliations: National Coalition For Marine Conservation National Outdoor Coalition United Four Wheel Drive Associations Membership Secretary Dave Zeloski 7 Cottonwood Drive Hudson, NH 03051 (603) 883-3884 This letter is submitted for the record of For some time now we have been concerned with the arastic rise in "special recreation permit" fees (authorized under 16 USC 460 1-6a) which our members are charged in order to gain access to coastal beaches administered by the Department of Interior, in order to pursue their sport. Although we have brought this concern to the attention of the Department in an April 24,1984 letter, we have been orally tola that they have institutea a nationwide review of the user fee issue and these concerns will oe includea in that review. We have not been advised or received any other response to the particular issues raised on this matter and are hopeful that your oversight hearing will lead to restoration of some equity for our members. Our 10,000 members use an over-sand vehicle (a 4 wheel drive or OHV in federal language) for access to coastal beaches in order to gain access to otherwise remote and inaccessible sections of the shore in order to locate fish and to keep up with moving schools. On federal beaches this occurs on lanas of the national seashores/recreat ion areas of the National Park Service and national wildlife refuges of the Fish and Wildlife Service. This use has existed for several generations; both before and after many of these areas were administerea by the federal government. (270) 2 It is for this reason we call ourselves mobile scort fishermen. The over-sana vehicle allows the sportfisherman to reach areas that would not be accessible to the fisherman on foot and required to walk in chest high waders and carry all the equipment of the sport. It provides a thoroughly enjoyable and successful recreation experience that is not available to the fisherman traveling by "shank's mare". For the very young, aged and disabled it allows access that is otherwise denied. Our members supported creation of many of these areas in order to preserve a recreational way of life and most of the area enabling acts recognize and provide that fishing is an acceptable use. Without the vehicle access, sportfishing would oe severely restricted to an area perhaps mile distant from the access point with the majority of the shore inaccessible and fishing therefore denied. There is a question in our mind as to whether Congress intended that a fee should be charged for the only means of practical access to public lanas in order to pursue a sport that a national seashore enabling act explicitly requires shall be allowed. The vehicle use existed prior to creation of these seashores and the Congress knew of it and it's purpose. It would seem to us that with this knowledge and by providing for continued fishing access in the act establishing the seashore, that Congress accepted and authorized this means of access in recognition of it's practical considerations. This belief seems to be confirmed by 16 USC 460 1-6(a)(4) which specifically requires that "no fees of any kind shall be collected from any persons who have a right of access for hunting or fishing privileges unaer a specific provision of law ..."Yet federal ORV permit fees are being collectea for this access privilege, and frustrate this public access policy. As snortfishermen we know that you authored creation of the wallop-Breaux Fund and of your successful efforts to overturn the OMB impoundment of these funds. We are very appreciative of your decisive efforts on our behalf.The W-B Fund created a user fee we can understand and support.As contributors to the fund we will see a oeneficial return of our contributions. As the saying goes "sportsmen pay for conservation", and we are quite willing to continue. With regard to ORV permit fees for mobilesportfishing access, there has been no aiscernable cost to the federal government to provide the access, nor a return to the contributor for his contribution. It is viewed simply as a tax to raise revenues. We recommend that the LWCFA be revised to allow user fees to be retained at the area where it is collected and to be used for the venefit of the uses for which the fee is imposed.Where policy requires provision for a use, no fee should be charged for the means of accessing that use unless a feaeral expense is incurred; in which case the fee should not exceed the expense. 3 We also suggest that if the Administration's policy of user fues is to be expanded that backpackers and other users of public lands, including wilderness areas also contribute their equitable share. we feel the present provisions of the LWCFA selectively apply a fee to certain users while allowing others to escape and is therefore discriminatory. Our members give generously of their time, labor, fuel and equipment costs in performing conservation projects on federal lands which would otherwise go undone or require expenditure of federal funds. Perhans these contributions also merit consideration in a user fee structure. There is also a need to consider application of the Golden Eagle and Golden Age Passport concept to "special recreation permit" users so that retirees and others who visit more than one national sea snore or other federal area are not assessed more than their equitable saare of costs, especially when there are no material federal costs connected with the privilege. Enclosed for your information is a copy of our letter of April 24,1984 to the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, ilalife and Parks referred to earlier. It details our grievances with user fees at Assateague Island National Seashore. Many of the points raised are applicable elsewhere. We trust your oversight hearings will produce substantive results that so far we have been unable to obtain from the Department. That they provide impetus through Congressional direction for movement by the Department to correct the inequities we believe exist. We are appreciative of your interest in this matter and of the opportunity you have providea to offer our comment. P.S. Enclosed also is a copy of a Dec.27,1984 letter to Senator Mathias from George T.English Jr (not a member of our organization) which is one of a series of letters to the Senator on the same issue at a National Wildlife Refuge. W.E.M. The Honorable Charles McC. Mathias Weber Building, Suite 212 9420 Annapolis Road Lanham, Maryland 20760 3508 Woodridge Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20902 Re: Your transmittal letter dated Dear Senator Mathias: I want to thank you for your assistance in securing a reply from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FS) to my complaint about the management of off-road vehicles (ORV's) at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (NR). Although I appreciate receiving the organization's answer to my letter of October 4, 1984, which stated specific NWR management abuses, I do not agree that FWS' reply dated November 19, 1984 was responsive to my concerns. In this letter, I will separate my rejoinder into (1) legal/user equity issues, and (2) ecological/environmental protection issues. The FWS reply did not mention the fraudulent aspect of the present Chincoteague NJR ORV management plan. To "oversell" access or charge one distinct group of users fees for access while not charging other distinct user groups fees for access to Assateague Island is blatant discrimination against the penalized group. No fees are charged to non-ORV users of the Chincoteague NWR, but ORV users who wish to drive in the designated beach areas are first required to purchase a weekly permit for $10 or an annual permit for $35. In contrast, the National Park Service (NPS) charges all vehicles $2 for daily access or $10 for an annual permit (i..e, the "Golden Eagle") to visit our national parks. Hence, it is hard to accept the notion that all of the costs for providing access to Assateague Island are due only to FHS' provision of added services for the small number of OPV users, while the vast majority of other users (who require facilities, life guards, trash cans, paved reads/parking areas, etc.) are responsible for none of the cost. Other than a planked ramp over the primary dune, two air stations, and a few signs along the beach, ORV owners receive no more services than do other users from the HIR. Consequently, it is my conclusion that the fees charged to ORV users are deliberately designed to be discriminatory and punitive. If the FWS were truly concerned about equitable treatment of the public, it would charge all users the same basic access fee, with a modest surcharge for those ORV users who desire to use the designated ORV beach areas. Accordingly, I propose that FWS charge all vehicular users (except bicycles) the same fee for access to Chincoteague HR as does the NPS for access to the national parks (i.e., $2 daily/$10 annually). An additional $1 daily/$5 annually should be charged to ORV users desiring access to the designated beaches. In any case, the daily access fee and ORV surcharge should not be collected if vehicular access is limited because of crowded conditions, as Occasionally occurs during summer weekend periods. Furthermore, current NPS "Golden Eagle" pass and Federal waterfowl stamp (i.e., duck stamp) holders should be allowed free entry to NWRS. With respect to the FUS reply to my criticism of the 12 vehicle per mile standard used to limit access to the designated ORV beach areas, the FWS reply did not provide any supporting documentation for its position. No mention was made of previous studies conducted to support the imposition of the 12 vehicle per mile "standard," only the need to conduct new studies if the so-called "standard" were to be exceeded. What proof is there that 13 or 23 vehicles per mile would irreparably harm the environment? Consequently, the FWS "standard" is arbitrary and capricious! Before denying access to the tax paying citizens, the FWS managers ought to be sure of their facts! In support of my assertion that their "standard" is indefensible, I suggest that they visit the Hatteras Island National Seashore in North Carolina, specifically the Cape Point beach area where unlimited/uncontrolled ORV access is permitted by the National Park Service. No fees are charged, no inspection of vehicles is required, and no services other than planked ramps over the primary dune and a fish cleaning table are provided. Despite the extremely heavy ORV use of this area, the plentiful number of sea birds which abound at Cape Point belies any suspicion that the NPS is derelict in performing its duties through its low-key management approach! Finally, the use of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 as a substitute for Congressional Legislation is suspiciously like "government-by-decree" that characterizes many third world and most socialist governments. The NPS seems to interpret its mandate under these Executive Orders far differently than does the FHS, thus the dichotomy in the management approaches for ORV's at Cape Hatteras versus Assateague Island. Management of our natural resources does not have to mean absolute totalitarian control, as the difference in ORV management philosophies between these two Department of Interior agencies indicates. The HR areas under FS supervision were not established initially with the intent of fostering discrimination and extortion upon one group of visitors under the guise of "protecting the environment." Assessed fees should reflect actual costs and should be charged equitably to all users of NWR facilities, not just ORV operators desiring access to the designated beach areas. I suggest that the Congress investigate and rectify the bureaucratic abuses which the arbitrary and discriminatory behavior of the Fish and Wildlife Service has caused by its government-by-decree (1.e., administrative fiat) approach to citizens' legitimate rights. Thank you for your continued assistance in resolving this matter. Sincerely, Enclosures George T. English, Jr. |