Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

National Coalition For Marine Conservation • National Outler Coalition • United Four Wheel Drive Asuoristoran

A

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

(617) 52k 04'4

G.hay Arnett

Assistant Secretary

Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Department of Interior

Washington, L.C.

Dear kay,

20240

April 24,1984

At the March UMS meeting I became aware of
arustic hikes in ORV nermit fees for Assateague
Island National Peashore (AINS). It was not too
long ago that there was no fee. Then a 6 fee was
instituted which although reasonable; in hindsight
appears to have been just a planned start and
pernans should have been opposed. In 1982 the
fee was raised to 1b and now in 1984 it is $30.

In a period of three years the fee was increased six fold. I can think of no other federal entry/use fee that has seen this sort of escalation. It has no connection whatsoever to the inflationary rate or comparable services and facilities provided commensurate with the increase.

Apparently there has not even been an increase in law enforcement presence or the beach to assure visitor safety and resource protection so that the 144 vehicle limit could be raised and therefore end the frustration of those who have come to fish and are turned away because the limit has been reached. (The reasonableness of this 144 vehicle limit is Afrother matter that needs to be discussed at another time.)

In sum, the increases are without rational justification and are exhorbitant.I can only hope that they are not deliberately intended to "sock it to" the mobile sport fisherman, but from where I sit one might make a case for this sort of discrimination.

In addition, while the short term visitor was recognized in th 1962 hike by establishing a lesser fee (of 0) in 1962, it is unfortunately among this cluss that a greater monitoring of misconduct is necessary. Their fee was not effected by the 1984 nixes; thus in the three year period their increase has been a two fold one so that they are not bearing a comparableshare of enforcement personnel costs, whic. in any event has not been committed

In examining the statutory fee setting criteria which was authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). we find that it (18 USC 4601-6a (d)) specifies that fees shall be fair and equitable, taking into consideration the direct and indirect costs to the government, benefits to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, the comparable recreation fees charged by non-Federal public agencies. The LWCFA

(16 JSC 4601a(c)) authorizes special recreation permit fees for "motorized recreation vehicle" uses.

In accordance with each of these criteria we offer the following comment:

a. Fair and equitable

We believe the fee is neither. The cost of a Golden Eagle Passport for free admission to all entrance fee units is 10 and provides access to real property capital investments provided by the government as well as to services provided by PS rersonnel. The vehicle permit fee exceeds the cost of this passport and only allows access to one unit,AINS.

The Golden Age Passport is provided free of charge to those who attain age 62 (and the similar free lifetime admission permit for federally recognized disable persons) and provides free admission these units. The later two permits/rassports rrovide a 50% discount on recreation use fees for use of major federal investments such as campgrounds which can charge a use fee of as little as $3 rer day for group use; often in direct competition with similar facilitie /services offered by the private sector, which charge fees well in excess of federal use fees.There is no similar discount for senior citizens or disabled trying to live on a fired income in regard to the vehicle fee, which was the cost of the Golden Fael Fassrort a couple of years ago and which is now three times its cost.

b. Direct and indirect government costs

There have been no capital investments, direct or indirect, by the government for the area of mobile sportfishing use. The only cost expense incurred is that necessary for law enforcement for wrir a personnel expense would be required even in the absence of any mobile sportfishing activity. There has been no discernaule increase in enforcement activity since inception of rermit fees or any other service or beneficial return to permitees that are funneled back to enhance this particular outdoor recreational program. In addition, members of Assateague Mobile Sportfishermen are available to assist the NPS with conservation and volunteer projects in the use area if needed to help minimize any exrenses. Rather, it seems, the fee is nothing more than a rev nue raising measure that has now been raised to the level that the traffic will bear, even if it will result in denial of access to the snore for those unaule to afford the cost of access for their sport.

c. Benefits to the recipient

The permit allows mooile sportfishing and hunting access to seashore resources. Without it such access would be confined to an extremely limited area thereby severely curtailing cess to the majority of resources and eliminating the opportunity to search

for and find the fish or the ability to keep up with moving schools d would similarly deny hunting opportunities. The permit also provides an opportunity for some to engage in off road vehicle driving activity for that recreational purpose only.

The OkV fee serves to discourage mooile sportfishermen from availing themselves of the benefits of seashore fishery resources for those least able to afford it as well as those from afar who are able to only occasionally travel to the seashore during peak fishing seasons.

J. Puolic policy or interest served

Juction of theAINS enabling act specifically requires that unting and fishing shall be allowed. The permit fulfills that requirement in part by authorizing mobile sportfishing access to the southern portion of the seashore. In addition, in conjunction with implementing regulations for the use it satisfies the requirements of executive orders with regard to ORV use. It helps to fulfill the mandates of the Coastal Zone Management Act to provide for and improve recreational access to the coast; in particular those recreational activities that are dependent on such access for fulfillment. The fee works to reverse effectuation of these policies/interests.

e. Comparable recreation fees charged by non-Federal rublic agencies Although the LWCFA authorizes establishment of user fees, it does t require it; even when comparaule non-federal or private use Treas are nearoy, nor require that federal fees be equal.

In review of Public Law 93-303 legislative history, an OMB letter aiscussed complaints from the non-federal and private sectors that federal use fees were too low and implied that unfair federal competition caused revenue loss to these parties. In that Scenaric the federal competition was hurting these parties. Where there are no other nearby use areas or a question of loss of revenues from federal competition there should be no effort to limit use of public resources or create an artificial fee barrier to such use.

With regard to other comparable nearby non-federal agency or private mobile sportfishing areas, there are no others in the entire Stute of Maryland. AINS is the only game in town for Maryland residents. The only other areas on the entire Delmarva Peninsula are those operated by the State of Delaware of which there are three state raras (Cape Henlopen, Indian River and Fenwick Island Stute Puras). The total miles of beach available for mobile Sportfishing provided by the State of Delaware exceeeas that of ains oy at least 50% and a $30 ORV permit provides access to all ureus as well as to parking areas at state parks. The state rrovides ir compressors at the parks for re-inflation of tires and for the JM affiliate in the state (Delaware Kobile Sportfishermen) they also furnish picnic tables and porta-john sanitary facilities to accomodate this affiliate's annual (picnic) evert on the beach.

Non-residents (e.g.from Maryland) are charged a feu double that of Deluwure residents willen obviously discourages out of state visitors tra using these facilities. Fenwick Island S.2. is some 22-21 miles Glutant from Aids, Jupe Henlopen 5.P. is 43-4 miles away with Indian River .. Some intermediate distance between the two.

None of the three parks have any limit on the number of vehicles allowed entry, thus as is the case with AINS, no one experiences the frustration of being denied access to the beach after having traveled many miles due the vehicle limit being reached.

In sum, there are no comparable use areas in the commuting region and even those outside the region have superior provisions, thus there is no comparability.

f. Special recreation permit fees for recreation vehicle ure The LWCPA (16 JSC 4601-6a(c)) spcifies that fees for this use may be set; it does not require it. It is our belief that the definition of recreation vehicle use would identify such use as those forms of recreation that are derived directly and exclusively from the operation of the vehicle. There are those whose ase of Assateague beaches are for the purrose of off-road driving. There is the mobile sportfisherman who derives his recreation from the sport of fishing. The vehicle serves the purpose of providing access to the beach and the fishery resources in the absence of other practical access to the beach and the fishery resources, and which permits transport of food, clotning, tackle, equipment, bait, catch and provides shelter in inclement weather. It aids in and enhances the sportfishing experience and the right of access privilege for hunting and fishing granted by Section of AI'S enabling law. It is therefore our belief that establishment of permit fees for mobile sportfishermen is not in accordance with the LWCFA which established the user fee system and which explicitly specifies (16 U3C 4601-68(a)(4)) that no fees of any kind shall be collected from any persons who have a right of access for hunting or fishing rrivileges under a specific provision of law. In view of the lack of other alternate means of access to the shore for fishing it seer · to us the fee violates this provision of law with resreet to mobile sportfishermen's access.

In conclusion, the latest fee hike has become oppressive and can no longer e ignorea. We believe there is no fairness, equity, relationship to government costs incurred, benefit returned to the recipient, comparability or justification under provisions of law. We therefore request that you order a review as specified under Section (c)(1) of Executive Order 11200 (Establishment of Recreation User rees).

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

I recently learned that your Sub-Committee on Public Lands was studying the issue of recreational user fees. I would appreciate an opportunity to comment on this subject.

Having worked for the U.S. Forest Service back in 1965 when the "first" recreational user fees were first implemented I can speak from some experience. Also being involved with organized recreation for well over 10 years now I can relate to experiences, impressions, and desires of the recreationists who will have to "pay".

Basically the concept of recreational user fees is largely supported by recreationists. Most people realize that nothing is "free". The questions in people's minds relate to equity and uses of the fees collected. The fee charged the recreationist must be equitable. The fellow camping in a tent alongside the road shouldn't pay as much as the fellow with the 40ft. rolling hacienda. Most importantly the fees collected must be ear-marked to be used in the areas and for the purposes that they were collected. The fees paid by outdoor recreationists must be used to further enhance the campgrounds, etc. that they were collected in. No one wants to see their dollars going to a "general fund" that buys pool cues for some nieghborhood rec-hall in downtown DC.

The federal agencies providing for public outdoor recreation need an equitable user fee system. The agencies just don't have adequate funding to provide for this vital need of our society. We need a recreational user fee that "dedicates" the fees collected for enhancement of the facilities and providing for more recreational opportunities. Perhaps one way to provide the facilities needed would be to "lease" certain public recreational sites to commercial developers. Equitable fees could be established and certainly money collected would be turned back into the enterprise to further profits. This would of course require adequate legislation to extend leasing periods beyond the present limitations so that the entrepeneur can find the necessary financing.

I do believe that equitable and manageable recreational user fees can be formulated. With a little understanding of the needs of recreationists, some creative thinking, and a system of dedicated fees there should be little problem in implementing this program.

Sincerely;

Stu Bengsin

Stu Bengson

Director, Land-Use
UFWDA

CC: Derrick Crandall, ARC

RESPECT...PROTECT...AND ENJOY: LAND, WATER, MOUNTAINS, AND SUN RESOURCES

« PreviousContinue »