Fee demo
program
has fallen short
Guest
opinion by Sen. LARRY CRAIG
The
grades are in, and the recreation fee demonstration project has flunked
in Idaho. I will oppose the continuation of the pilot project as it has
been implemented over the last few years, including the proposed Hells
Canyon recreation fee.
However,
opposing the recreation fees leaves us with challenges in addressing
increased use and impact by those wishing to spend time on our rivers
and public lands.
It’s
worth recalling that the pilot program proposed by the Forest Service
had good intentions. It was supposed to make up for budget shortfalls
that the natural resource agencies perceived they were experiencing.
In spite
of Congress increasing funds for recreation on Forest Service lands over
the last decade, there has been a decrease in the amount of money
actually getting to the ground. Some of that money has been diverted to
other programs such as the failed and costly Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project.
Additionally,
during bad fire seasons like the one we are having this year, the Forest
Service is forced to use project funding to pay for the cost of fire
fighting, then get reimbursed by Congress in an emergency bill early in
the next fiscal year. The net effect of this process is that funding for
many of the agency’s field operations, including some recreation
spending, is held back or borrowed to pay for fire fighting. This
uncertainty further hinders the delivery of recreation service.
When the
demonstration program was first introduced on Forest Service lands,
there were several conditions: First, we wanted to keep money collected
at the local level to make improvements on the ground in that recreation
area.
Second,
there had to be collaboration with those most affected by the fees—the
recreation users and the local communities adjacent to that forest.
And
third, whatever fee program proposed had to be fair to all users.
While
some recreation fees have become commonplace and successful, such as
fees for campgrounds or fishing and hunting licenses, the recently
implemented and proposed fees on public lands and for river use have
failed. These new fees are also meeting substantial resistance from
recreation users.
We have
seen the Forest Service aggressively grow the user fees beyond the
original intent of the program. In some instances the Forest Service has
taken a "field of dreams" approach: if they build it, the
public will pay? The original pilot program authorized a limited number
of projects, but one region chose to collect trail head fees on more
than 1,000 different trails in two different states as a single project.
Administrative expansions like this have only undermined the public’s
trust in this program and provided reason for change.
Absent
the pilot program, we are left with three challenges: First, we need to
properly fund recreation activities on public lands, and make sure
recreation dollars are going to recreation.
Second,
we need to streamline the litigation process for appeals on public
lands. I have introduced legislation to do just that. We can no longer
afford to manage public lands in the courtroom, whether for recreation
or fire management. Those decisions must be placed in the hands of
Forest Service and other land management professionals in collaboration
with the local communities most affected by those decisions.
Finally,
there are areas on our National Forests that receive so much
recreational use we are literally loving them to death. After the
adoption of the Roadless policy, recreational use has been concentrated
into fewer and smaller areas. We must find ways to help the agencies
control this over-use and find ways to disperse this use to less heavily
used areas.
I will be
working on these challenges and invite concerned communities and
individuals to share innovative ideas for improving the stewardship of
Idaho’s public lands.
U.S. Sen.
Larry Craig, a Republican, is Idaho’s senior senator.