5 nonrecreational purposes. How Collected: This is one of the real sticking points. Many parks, forests, refuges, reservoirs, etc. have a major point of entry. In this case, there could be a collection point where every car entering would pay either a single visit fee or show (or buy) an annual permit. Since people dont only arrive in cars a comparable fee would be collected (or permit shown) for bicyclists, runners, busloads, ORVers, horsemen. Such collection points would be manned at those times and seasons when, in the opinion of the supervisor, traffic would warrant stationing some one on the "gate". However, some installations have so many points of access or so little use at any one point that a collection gate would not be warranted. The Forest Service maintains that this is true of most of its ranger districts. However, even the Forest Service has a great number of campgrounds giving access to all sorts of trails and recreational opportunities that are sufficiently popular to warrant a point of collection. The real problem for the Forest Service is they want to keep what they collect and realize they would fare badly compared to others. (For the solution to this problem, see "Who Gets the Fees") But concentration on where (what areas, trails, rivers, wildernesses) can permits be required or on how many permits can I sell is, I think, faulty thinking. What are we trying to do: Sell single visit permits or sell annual permits? It is the latter I think that will provide the greatest source of receipts. So long as a person is induced by the existence of a collection point ANYWHERE to buy an annual permit, it does not make any difference if he enters a recreation area by a collection point or elsewhere. This takes care of the enforcement and harassment problem. It can also take care of the local resident user problem. If the local resident has to go through a collection gate, he can be given a pass. If he also wants to use some other park or forest, he buys an annual permit like anyone else. Who Gets the Fees The usual answer is: the collector. This usually gets approval because most people think it ensures the fees collected will be used for recreational purposes. Again, I think this shows faulty thinking for two reasons: 1. People will refuse to buy a different permit for each of the land managing agencies they might visit. It would also be very unfair to expect them to do so. When a permit is bought from one agency and used in another, who should get it? 2. Most agencies talk of making permits easy to obtain by having them avail able from outfitters, etc. In that case who gets the fee? The answer to this problem is, I believe, to deposit all single visit and annual permit fees in a "Recreation Maintenance & Operations Fund"--see below. Compulsory v. Voluntary Fees: The presentation of a permit or purchase of a single visit permit at the collection point when requested should be compulsory. However, I believe a voluntry "Friend of Federal Recreation" permit should also be made available and be equally acceptable. It should cost a little more than the basic annual fee but I think many people would be willing to pay extra, particularly if accompanied by a bumper sticker, since many people like recognition. On any given weekend, members of a family might be going to several different federal recreation areas. Father could give each child or some of his friends either a regular annual permit or the voluntary one for a present for their own use. I, as a senior citizen, have a Golden Eagle which I value because it gives me a discount at campgrounds. It is free(as is also the one for the handicapped) but I am well able to and would be glad to contribute most years to the upkeep of the trails I enjoy so much. If you doubt people's willingness to contribute, look at the success of the voluntary check-off on the income tax returns for nongame birds. RECREATION MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FUND Currently, fees go into the Land & Water Conservation Fund. But that fund is designed only to provide funds for capital acquisitions and capital improvements. It should remain such and all tempation to use it for maintenance and operational expenses should be removed. In the future, general permit fees and part of the user fees should be put into a Recreation Maintenance and Operations Fund. A large portion of the funds collected each year should, in the following year, be appropriated and allocated to the federal land agencies in proportion to some measure of their visitor days. I say "some portion" because I believe it might be desirable that some portion of the appropriated amount--say 15%--be used for some special recreational project needed by one or other of the agencies. I would also like to recommend that the Recreation Maintenance and Operations Fund be governed by an advisory committee made up not only of representatives of the agencies but also of representatives of the various USERS of the agency lands. This committee should be charged with: Formulation of the regulations needed to implement the Fee Act Review of the operation of the fee system *Responsibility for recommending fee increases or changes in the regula tions as needed from time to time * Recommending each year the amount to be appropriated from the fund * Approving the projects to be funded by the "discretionary 15%" referred to above. 7 | I recommend that the advisory committee include representatives of the users for two reasons: The time to involve the public (users) is when policies (regulations, etc.) are being developed NOT after the agencies have decided what they are going to do (as is the case under the current "public participation" process.) Agencies only view issues from their own point of view. Our work on the Forest Service Fee Committee has shown that it is almost impossible to get an agency to understand the user's problems and point of view. It is, therefore, necessary that users have some vote in determining what regulations and allocations should be made. REPORT ON ACTIONS BY THE FOREST SERVICE FEE COMMITTEE In closing I would like to draw your attention to the experience and action of the self-appointed committee working with the Forest Service on the fee question. After several meetings with the Forest Service and receiving some of their proposals, we met in the fall of 1984 by ourselves and agreed on the following: *The fee problem should be addressed by a National Outdoor Recreation Resources ́Review Committee and no action taken until they have had a chance to made recommendations. If the agencies cannot wait, then an act applicable to ALL agencies should be proposed instead of each agency having its own bill. In this act, Congress should set the guidelines within which each agency could determine when, where and how to set fees. *Fees should go into a recreation maintenance fund which was to have an advisory committee that would include users. In the spring of 1984 and again in the spring of 1985 the Forest Service invited all those interested in the fee issue to meet with it to hear the Forest Service's proposals for legislation. On both occasions they were told that their proposals with regard to permits was totally unacceptable. It was not that there was opposition to fees--actually they favored them--but the fact that the Forest Service had not thought through the implications of what they were proposing. When a defect was pointed out for the second year, they would reply: "Oh, I am sure we can fix it." As they themselves said, "We dont know how to do it but give us the authority and we will find a way." That is not good enough. As a user, when legislation is proposed I want to be sure it will work, it will achieve the intended purpose, it is fair to all. Thank you for this opportunity to give you my views on fee legislation. |