Commentary by Pat Murphy

As they count dollars for "user" fees dribbling into their coffers, the brass at the Forest and Parks services shouldn't confuse compliance with popular endorsement of the fee. In fact, odds are that when the so-called three-year test on this scheme runs its course, overwhelming protests will amount to thunderous disapproval by a resentful public.

One other prediction: before the century is out, this "user" fee scheme will land in the Supreme Court, challenged for its abuse of tradition, violation of basic logic and indifference to taxpayer rights.

Mind you, most of us would willingly cough up donations to support and preserve Nature's wonders in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and other public lands, where the grandeur of unspoiled wilderness is one of the blessings of living in this area.

What's so repugnant, however, is why this "user" fee was created and how it's being enforced.

Blame for the fee rests with the devious, shell game politics of that stingy Republican claque in Washington, including Idaho's congressional delegation, that refuses to fund the nation's most cherished assets and heritage - its parks, forests, arts and children.

But give them a chance to vote on a couple more B-2 bombers, or handsome pay raises and regal accoutrements for themselves, a new marble building in Washington or the wants of a pet contributor (such as Idaho Sen. Dirk Kempthorne's cute plan to reward a crony with millions of dollars for losing grazing rights to the Air Force), the rush to dip into the public purse is utterly frantic.

The departments of Interior and Agriculture have no such luck. They're required by law and the politics of selective Republican generosity to manage public lands on a pauper's pittance; hence the "user" fee to make up the budget shortfall.

This is a clever Republican gambit: they starve federal programs onto life support, then boast they've achieved smaller, less costly government. That's like a physician shutting off a respirator, then telling the patient's grieving family he's no longer a cost burden.

Now don't miss this picture: Americans who were taxed to buy public lands are now told they can't use the public land they bought without first buying a ticket for access.

This denial of access assumes an even more outrageous dimension: failure to pay a fee can result in a citation and fine that I'm told by an SNRA spokesman could total $100, depending on circumstances.

Pity the hapless visitor who aimlessly and innocently wanders into an SNRA area, is caught by a Forest service enforcement officer for not having a pass and given a citation.

This conjures up the picture of a nation of taxpayers required to carry what amounts to a federal passport for access to certain areas of their own country, or face the pain of a penalty.

Imagine the outcry if Republicans who require us to pay a fee to walk a sylvan woodland trail were told that lobbyists prowling the halls of Congress, schmoozing members into special deals that're out of reach of working stiffs, should pay an access "user" fee.

My worst nightmare is that the Internal Revenue Service will find a "user" fee attractive to increase is budget: that because they "use" the IRS every April 15, taxpayers must also include a $5 fee along with their tax payments.

Far-fetched? About as far-fetched as telling Americans they now need a pass to walk onto public property they own.