Floating an idea, don't kill the messenger

[44hunter45]

It has long been a concern (at least to me) that "non-consumptive" users to not pay their way in terms of the use of the Federal public lands. Many states too.
Whereas P-R and D-J funds from hunters, shooters, boaters, and fisherman fund a lot; hikers, bikers, snowmobilers, et. al. do not contribute.

Efforts to create a "backpack" excise tax have been killed by the industry lobby time and again. How do we get everyone contributing? Why should we pay the rent for the freeloaders?

I have heard of some non-consumptives who do buy a duck stamp, but it is not required.

Since all entrants to National Park and USFWS managed lands pay access fees, I wonder about the idea that USFS and BLM institute a permit or stamp based system for access to their lands. Would hunters pay $10-$25 per year for a USFS or BLM access stamp? Could PR and DJ payer somehow be exempted. (In Idaho, hunting license holders are free to access IDL managed lands.)

Many if us pay for access to State or Corporate lands. Would there be social acceptance of a permit system for Federal lands access?

I understand this is in some ways a double impact on those who are already paying excise taxes. I realize that compliance would be as bad or worse than Duck Stamp purchase for USFWS land.

Both P-R and D-J were started first within the sporting community before the became law. Is there enough grass to get the attention of Federal Land Managers or Congress for this.

There earmarked revenue potential from this could be quite high.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I am not on board for ANYONE paying any more than what we already do. I feel that we are ALL being taken to the cleaners by the government as it currently stands.

More permits and taxes and more fee's is just more government tyranny that NONE of us need (or should want) in our lives and it does nothing but create division and animosity amongst groups of people. Besides, your kidding yourself if you think they will use the money for what it was intended for instead of just pi$$ing that money away with pet projects/secret backdoor programs.

Now, if you want to fight for LESS Permits and LESS government involvement in our lives, most of us can get on board with that. Give the government an inch and they take a mile and they wont give $hit back to you.

 

[Greybeard]

He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. It helps that we are the ones paying the fiddler.

 

[Bob-WY]

Better ootion would be extend what PR civers to those other groups. Might be an rasier move than a new tax or fee.

 

[COEngineer]

I worked with the USFS, local water district, and several non-profits on how to upgrade or even just maintain a popular river section south of Denver. A few decades ago, it was basically only accessed by fishermen, but now it is popular with hikers, dog-walkers, picnickers, etc. The parking lot holds maybe 20 cars and then people start parking every damn place along the narrow dirt USFS road. People and their dogs shit everywhere, erosion is out of control, etc, etc. I asked the USFS employees if they could institute a fee to help pay for expansion/maintenance of the parking lot, bathrooms, bridges, trails, etc and their response was "No, it's too much of an administrative hassle." It's not just coming up with an access/permit/fee system and enforcing it, but even getting approval from higher headquarters. Now, there are places like Sedona, AZ that have a system of pay-to-use parking lots, trailheads, etc on federal public land that I think works well (from my perspective the fees are reasonable and the facilities are well-maintained at appropriate levels, ie nothing extravagant). So, I like the Sedona model, but I kind of understand the hurdles to get there - ie the inertia of a federal land manager that is used to a mostly hands-off model.

 

[El Jason]

He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. It helps that we are the ones paying the fiddler.

That’s a delusion. No way are hunters “calling the tune” with respect to federal land management.

 

[El Jason]

Better ootion would be extend what PR civers to those other groups. Might be an rasier move than a new tax or fee.

Either way it’s new legislation that affects a currently exempt group. It’ll be an equally hard push.

 

[El Jason]

I’ll happily pay a user fee if it comes with the agreement commercial entities and resource users pay a legitimate fee for grazing, mining, etc.

 

[Nameless Range]

Under current law, they are not allowed to institute such a fee.

(1) Prohibition on fees for certain activities or services

The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this chapter for any of the following:



(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.
(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.
(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.
(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.
(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).
(F) For use of overlooks or scenic pullouts.
(G) For travel by private, noncommercial vehicle over any national parkway or any road or highway established as a part of the Federal-aid System, as defined in section 101 of title 23,1 which is commonly used by the public as a means of travel between two places either or both of which are outside any unit or area at which recreation fees are charged under this chapter.
(H) For travel by private, noncommercial vehicle, boat, or aircraft over any road or highway, waterway, or airway to any land in which such person has any property right if such land is within any unit or area at which recreation fees are charged under this chapter.
(I) For any person who has a right of access for hunting or fishing privileges under a specific provision of law or treaty.
(J) For any person who is engaged in the conduct of official Federal, State, Tribal, or local government business.
(K) For special attention or extra services necessary to meet the needs of the disabled.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I’ll happily pay a user fee if it comes with the agreement commercial entities and resource users pay a legitimate fee for grazing, mining, etc.

While, I agree with your premise, who do you think is actually going to pay those grazing, mining, etc. fees you speak of?

 

[Gerald Martin]

While, I agree with your premise, who do you think is actually going to pay those grazing, mining, etc. fees you speak of?

The private companies who extract minerals, oil, gas and the folks who graze their cattle and sheep on the land.

Grazers already pay a small fee. Hard rock miners pay no royalties for the non- renewable resources they extract for private profit.

 

[Mallardsx2]

The private companies who extract minerals, oil, gas and the folks who graze their cattle and sheep on the land.

Grazers already pay a small fee. Hard rock miners pay no royalties for the non- renewable resources they extract for private profit.

WRONG.

Its you and me. WE/US as consumers will pay for these increased fees. The people who buy products.
Every fee and license is nothing more than a passthrough cost to the consumer.

EVERY.
SINGLE.
PENNY.

 

[OreIdaElk]

WRONG.

Its you and me. WE/US as consumers will pay for these increased fees. The people who buy products.
Every fee and license is nothing more than a passthrough cost to the consumer.

EVERY.
SINGLE.
PENNY.

With the current federal system tax payers are footing the bill instead of the consumer. Shouldn’t the consumer be the one financially responsible for what they consume?