An idea to make public lands more profitable

[MNElkNut]

I was in Canada fishing recently and saw the sign that you need to get a permit and pay something like $9 per night to camp on Crown land. Hmmm.

One of the PLT crowds rallying points is that public lands do not make enough money. The land boards face this issue as they are required to manage for profitability (might have worded it wrong, but the idea is correct I believe).

So what if sportsmen take a proactive step for a change and push to require a permit and small fee to camp on BLM, Forest Service, etc public lands. I think you could kind of put those pro-PLTers in a bind by proposing the idea.

Just a thought I had. Has this concept ever been brought up? I certainly would pay a fee to keep our lands public!

 

[Gut Shot]

I pay enough fines, fees, taxes, licensures and bribes to the "crown".

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Many camp grounds are already fee areas, and some high use back-country areas are require a permit and fee, and there are thousands of OG wells on public lands. I'm not sure profitability is really the problem. The problem is cronyism: Rich guys in Utah know that if federal lands are given to the state of Utah they can use their connections to have the state sell them those lands for below market value, and then develop and flip them for a huge profit. The profitability argument is simply a strategy to convince you and I to allow them to make a mountain of cash off our land.

 

[one ate E grain]

Why should I pay to camp on land I own?

 

[Nick87]

No thanks, I think this would be an extremely slippery slope imo.

 

[lodgepoleJoe]

No Thanks, we already pay taxes or fees for everything we do. Now Oregon is trying to pass a Cap and Trade bill and we'll have to pay for the air we breathe.

 

[Schaaf]

I’d be more interested in seeing the people who are profiting off public lands pay the fair market rates.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

No Thanks, we already pay taxes or fees for everything we do. Now Oregon is trying to pass a Cap and Trade bill and we'll have to pay for the air we breathe.

I believe you mean corporations like the one I work for are going to have to pay to pollute the air you breath.

 

[Sytes]

I'd like to see active Stewardship roles, use of logging for the employment factor utilizing a massive renewable resource, reducing overgrowth ~ reducing extreme crown fire, enhancing flora and fauna.
To start.
If anything out there has a potential towards bridging the gap... State Stewardship programs that retain ownership of the land for the American people (remains Federal) while enhancing State employment, resources, etc.

Extremists hold the average American hostage. Extreme enviros and extreme PLT groups.

 

[bullbugle307]

Why should I pay to camp on land I own?

I agree you shouldn't have to pay to camp on land you own. But as any landowner knows you generally have to pay to keep up your land. Roads need to be kept up, forests need to managed, fences need to mended etc... One could argue we already do that through taxes, but the truth is, many people recieve more benefits from the feds than what they pay in taxes. In rural Wyoming, for example, many folks don't even pay enough in federal taxes to cover the cost of educating their kids, let alone to take care of the federal lands they own. Ive often thought I wouldn't mind paying some extra fees to help maintain federal lands, provided those fees went to boots on the ground projects.

 

[antlerradar]

I’d be more interested in seeing the people who are profiting off public lands pay the fair market rates.

If you use public land you are profiting from it. If you are not you wouldn't be there. The last thing I would want to see is for recreation to have to pay market rate.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I would gladly pay a fee to recreate on public land ... IF management and protection of public lands by the responsible agencies was fully funded by Congress and additional funding above taxes was necessary for maintenance or other programs.
Furthermore, IMO Congress should fund wildfire mitigation and suppression costs without public land agencies having to deplete budgets for those ever increasing costs. Programs to maintain healthy forests and public recreational facilities suffer greatly at the expense of dealing with wildfires.

 

[MNElkNut]

Wow, I didn't know that people are so unwilling to pay a few bucks to potentially keep our lands public, accessible, and managed. But of course we can do nothing and see how that plays out. Exploring new ideas to be proactive on the PLT issue is vital to ensure we have theses opportunities. Being reactive to the other side is going be playing a losing hand. they will chip away and chip away until we have nothing left. That is why I threw this idea out, lets go on the offensive for a change.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'd like to see active Stewardship roles, use of logging for the employment factor utilizing a massive renewable resource, reducing overgrowth ~ reducing extreme crown fire, enhancing flora and fauna.
To start.
If anything out there has a potential towards bridging the gap... State Stewardship programs that retain ownership of the land for the American people (remains Federal) while enhancing State employment, resources, etc.

Extremists hold the average American hostage. Extreme enviros and extreme PLT groups.

I don’t have numbers in front of me but I’m pretty sure that logging actually costs the taxpayers money for building roads and maintenance. I could be wrong. I support logging but I don’t think it’s a winner in terms of adding money to the public coffer.

 

[mtmiller]

Wow, I didn't know that people are so unwilling to pay a few bucks to potentially keep our lands public, accessible, and managed.

I am willing to pay $1.35 a month to support public lands.

 

[375H&H]

I don’t have numbers in front of me but I’m pretty sure that logging actually costs the taxpayers money for building roads and maintenance. I could be wrong. I support logging but I don’t think it’s a winner in terms of adding money to the public coffer.

Logging certainly isn’t as much of a money sink as fire suppression is...

 

[antlerradar]

I am willing to pay $1.35 a month to support public lands.

Would you be willing to pay market rate of say a 100 to 200 dollars a day?

 

[MTGomer]

I could see buying a cheap yearly pass to use all federal land. Not saying I agree or disagree but it would be simple.
Wading into administering per night costs to camp, or access land on a daily basis would be a nightmare. Many would not comply and governmental inneficiency would figure out how to spend more administering it than it would bring in.

I might run out after work and check a trail camera. I might not. I won’t know until around 1.
I wouldn’t complain if I had a $20 annual pass for all BLM lands that allowed me to do this.
If I’m supposed to log in to some online portal and buy a day pass every time I go do something on a whim, that isn’t happening.

 

[mtmiller]

Would you be willing to pay market rate of say a 100 to 200 dollars a day?

market rate for what?

 

[jryoung]

I am willing to pay $1.35 a month to support public lands.

$1.35 RUM (recreation unit month) for a dude/lab pair seems reasonable.