Help get rid of the Adventure Pass!

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:45 pm

Call or email your elected officials and tell them to support the Baucus-Crapo bill which repeals fees like Adventure Pass. Why? Because it's double taxation. Americans already pay to use their public lands on April 15. We shouldn't be taxed twice to go fishing, hiking, or camping on OUR public lands. It just doesn't make any sense. Spread the word to all your outdoors loving friends!

Full text of the bill: http://www.baucus.senate.gov/documents/END07827.pdf [PDF]

Baucus, Crapo Bill Would Nix Recreation Fees
Montana, Idaho Sens. Team Up To Repeal Recreation Access Tax

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies would be blocked from charging Americans higher fees to access their public lands under legislation introduced today by two prominent Western lawmakers.

U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) today joined Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) in introducing the much-anticipated Fee Repeal and Expanded Access Act of 2007.

The bill would revoke authority given federal agencies, with the exception of the National Park Service, in 2004 to institute new fees and increase existing fees at campgrounds, trailheads, and other public areas.

Specifically, the bill repeals the 2004-passed Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act, sometimes called the recreational access tax, and reinstates legislation dating back to 1965 that limits the use of fees on public lands.

Baucus, a long-time critic of the fees, said the current system amounts to double taxation.

"Americans already pay to use their public lands on April 15," Baucus said. "We shouldn't be taxed twice to go fishing, hiking, or camping on OUR public lands. It just doesn't make any sense. That's why Mike and I are going to fight like the dickens to get this bill passed."

The senators noted that both the Montana and Idaho State Legislatures passed resolutions to repeal FLREA.

Crapo said, "As an outdoorsman and legislator, I have always supported fair and reasonable access to our nation's public lands. Mandatory user fees for access to many of those lands limits accessibility to those who can afford the cost and results in a 'pay-to-play' system that is unacceptable. I also fully recognize that we need to adequately fund recreation activities on federal lands and will continue to fight in Congress to make sure the funding needs of our public lands management agencies are met."

Debates have flared up in communities across the West as fees began to rise after the 2004 bill was passed. Baucus said he hopes his bill will help resolve those disputes.

Kitty Benzar, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, hailed the bill. Baucus worked closely with Benzar as well as the late Robert Funkhouser, who recently passed away, in crafting the legislation.

"This bill will bring an end to a failed experiment that has for 10 years burdened Americans with a double tax and kept them away from public lands they have always enjoyed," Benzar said. "I applaud this bipartisan effort."

The Baucus-Crapo bill would:

* Repeal the FLREA
* Reinstate the fee authorities established by the 1965 Land and Water Conservation Act
* Reinstate the National Parks Pass system
* Cap the amount that can be charged for entrance to national parks.

For complete text of the bill, visit http://www.baucus.senate.gov

SOURCE Office of Senator Max Baucus
http://www.baucus.senate.gov

Post by **Taco** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:00 pm

HUZZAH!!!!!!!

Agreed!

Thanks Tim.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:17 pm

The double taxation argument strikes me as extremely weak. I am not a fan of double taxation, but it goes on all the time. For example, we all pay income taxes, to the Federal government and to our individual states. We then go and spend our already-taxed funds on just about anything and are charged sales tax. The list of double taxes goes on and on.

I would be happy to see the Adventure Pass system go away and I would be happy to see a budget that supports the USFS, National Parks, etc. But I imagine that the double taxation argument will draw a big "so what?"

brian90620 · Post by **brian90620** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:48 pm

I AGREE........GET RID OF THE ADVENTURE PASS!!!!!!!! Why should we have to pay just to go expierence the great outdoors!!!! Anyways what is the money collected from the adventure pass being used for anyways? All I know is everytime I go to the local mountians I see grafitti all over the restrooms and campgrounds, I see trash all over the place near the developed areas, and all the offroad areas are currently closed........What the hell am I paying for??

I went up to the Inyo National Forest last weekend, I fished, went swimiming and I got to park everywhere for free, no adventure pass required there

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:34 pm

I like it because it has to make the areas less populated. It weeds out some people who don't respect what's up there to some degree. For that reason alone I think it's worth it. I would like to know exactly what they do with it though.

Post by **Taco** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:48 pm

I agree with Fight On.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:03 pm

Mike P · Post by **Mike P** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:27 am

I agree with Alan on this one. The double taxation argument is very weak.

Sadly, our forests are underfunded. I am a huge user of the local forests and don't mind kicking in a few bucks to help the Angeles and San Bernardino NFs. The reality is that the users will have to shoulder more of the burden of funding our open spaces.

How come I don't hear people screaming about paying $20 to go into our national parks??

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:49 am

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:04 am

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/a ... work.shtml

FEAST YOUR EYES!

RichardK · Post by **RichardK** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:14 am

The $2 billion a week being wasted on the Iraq boondoggle would buy a lot of Adventure Passes.

Terry Morse · Post by **Terry Morse** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:39 am

RichardK wrote:The $2 billion a week being wasted on the Iraq boondoggle would buy a lot of Adventure Passes.

Yeah, they might even be able to repair the Mt. Wilson Toll Road.

muddeer · Post by **muddeer** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:49 pm

Mike P wrote:Sadly, our forests are underfunded. I am a huge user of the local forests and don't mind kicking in a few bucks to help the Angeles and San Bernardino NFs. The reality is that the users will have to shoulder more of the burden of funding our open spaces.

I agree. At least with these specific "taxes" like Adventure Pass, our money is going into things that matter to us.

If you are not happy with the condition of our trails and mountains and want to help improve it, volunteers for trail maintenance, graffitti removal, and trash pickup at trailheads are always in demand. For local mountains, ODC is a good place meet other volunteers. The forest services simply don't have the funding to pay for the necessary labor, even with Adventure Pass.

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:33 pm

I wouldn't mind the elimination of the Adventure Pass, but I'd worry that there would just be that much less for the USFS to spend to maintain the SG Nat'l Forest.

Yes, the US Gov't overall has a lot of budget insanity, Iraq being foremost in that insanity, but the thing that really gripes me is the subsidy that they give to logging companies. It's not a subsidy in so many words, but it is a subsidy none the less. When logging leases are issued, the Forest Service will survey the land and even build roads all at taxpayer expense. It really gets me that if I want to cut down trees I can be subsidized, but if I just want to just take a walk among such trees, I have to pay for it.

Really, rather than to oppose the Adventure Pass alone, I would urge you all to write your representative and let them know that the, in effect, subsidy paid to logging companies is egregious in light of the fact that the common person has to pay merely to take a walk in the woods.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:02 pm

I don't understand the idea of anything being 'free'.

For something publicly owned (i.e. the people's land run through the people's government), there is some sort of maintenance. Maintenance is not free, costs $. $ comes from people, in taxes, or fees.

So the problem is not the fees, the problem is inefficient usage of money from taxpayers. Well, welcome to all problems with government!

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:03 pm

Hiking Jim,

What you mention about the logging companies....it makes sense to me that the Federal govt build the infrastructure. Would you want private companies to survey and build their own roads? Perhaps you are asking if logging leases should be issued at all?

If the terms were in the lease that the govt decides but the company pays, that would be one thing. So then the government has no incentive to be effective or efficient now..not sure how many companies would sign such a lease...your asking them to run through hoops, then compete with countries that are low cost...good luck. Some people dont mind no logging at all, which is basically logging as long as it ruins somewhere else. I think the cost of the lease factors in the cost to the feds.

Its here that the hyprocisy is revealed, as the stores is filled with people looking for cheap . Then gripe about high gas prices..what a joke. Dont worry, Im in that boat too now

..story just gets dire from here so....

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:41 pm

I admire people who are willing to donate money and/or their own time to help our forests. I try to help where I can by picking up trash and clearing trails. But I don't understand how and why a federal agency has become a charity case. Congress created the Forest Service to care and manage our federal lands for mulitiple uses and to protect them for generations to come. That's an important responsibility and requires proper funding to do the job. Federal agencies should be funded through Congress, using tax revenues from the general fund.

If we keep paying these mandatory user fees, Congress has no incentive to increase funding for the Forest Service. They might even slash the budget even further and raise fees even higher, since we users are so willing to pay. It will come to a point where only people who can afford to recreate will be able to do so. All else will be shut out. The National Parks already set this precedent, but if we let the national forests and other public lands fall to user fees too, there will be nothing left. Our national forests and public lands should not be made into a recreational commodity.

The real answer is to make the government accountable. Contact your elected officials and tell them they need to properly fund the Forest Service using tax revenues from the general fund. Then tell them to support the Baucus-Crapo bill to repeal these user fees. If they give you any lip about not having enough money, ask them about the $17 billion spent on pork belly projects this year or the billions of dollars in government waste.

Post by **HikeUp** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:55 pm

I'd rather bang my head against a rock for 3.5 days (or climb iron mt. 78 times in a row) than try and convince the douchebags in Washington to spend tax money properly. Just vote in a new douchebag next election and who knows, you might accidentally get one that does something right.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:58 pm

You think the Forest Service has it bad? Check this out.

I do agree that the Forest Service (and the Army) should be funded through taxes, not use fees and bake sales. The problem is living in a world where taxes are an anathema and everyone wants to do everything on the cheap.

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:28 pm

Tim wrote:
FIGHT ON wrote:I like it because it has to make the areas less populated. It weeds out some people who don't respect what's up there to some degree. For that reason alone I think it's worth it. I would like to know exactly what they do with it though.
I know what you're trying to say but the goons who disrespect nature aren't going to let fees stop them from coming up here anyway. There's still graffiti, trash and crap everywhere. Even if it did keep some of those guys away, fees are also keeping poor people away. Poor people should be able to take a walk in the forest just like everyone else. Even more insulting is that the forest belongs to them too, as a citizen of the United States of America!

Nothing is free.
I can understand that the forests are supposed to be available for everyone, even the poor. (Hard to imagine someone being so poor that they can't afford an adventure pass.) Even if I was that poor I would do what ever it takes to save up $30 to be able to go.
Nobody can do what ever they want to do every time they want to do it.
If you took away the adventure passes there would still be someone that could not make it there for some financial reason. and blame it on something. Can't please everybody.
What about the people who are not interested at all in the wilderness areas? Should they be obligated to pay for something that they will never ever visit? That seems unfair to me.
As far as the graffiti/trash slobs, I say make it harder for them. I see way more of that stuff down in the flats than way up in hard to get to areas.
The more difficult it is to get to the less slobs there are. Parks are easy to go to. Look at them. Like the dump! Trash everywhere everyday.
So I say extend that (hard to get to areas) down to the entrances of all these forest areas.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:57 pm

Speaking of logging, if you know a teacher, ask him or her to consider attending Forestry Institute for Teachers (FIT), if not this summer, then maybe next year. Duration is 1 week at one of several Northern California locations. My wife attended in 2007, and she reported that presentations were balanced: 50% pro-logging speakers, and 50% anti-logging speakers. Room & board are FREE, attendees receive a stipend (helps cover travel), and teachers get a stack of education resources to carry back to their classrooms.

Kit Fox · Post by **Kit Fox** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:22 am

Call me a bit insensitive, but I would much rather we go through a check point before entering National Forest Land. To gain access, you would need to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, or proof that you pay taxes in the U.S.

Illegals would be denied access, and so would people who collect welfare.

This should reduce the amount of grafitti, and diapers found along all the creeks, and rivers.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:14 am

Kit Fox wrote:Call me a bit insensitive, but I would much rather we go through a check point before entering National Forest Land. To gain access, you would need to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, or proof that you pay taxes in the U.S.

Illegals would be denied access, and so would people who collect welfare.

This should reduce the amount of grafitti, and diapers found along all the creeks, and rivers.

You just denied access to the wilderness to my 18 year old son. He doesn't leave graffiti or diapers but he doesn't pay taxes either.

And don't say that sales taxes are enough, since illegal immigrants and people on welfare pay those.

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:15 am

Kit Fox wrote:Call me a bit insensitive...

Taco, you heard the man. Right underneath his user name and above his avatar. If he had one.

Kit Fox · Post by **Kit Fox** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:58 am

AlanK wrote:
Kit Fox wrote:Call me a bit insensitive, but I would much rather we go through a check point before entering National Forest Land. To gain access, you would need to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, or proof that you pay taxes in the U.S.

Illegals would be denied access, and so would people who collect welfare.

This should reduce the amount of grafitti, and diapers found along all the creeks, and rivers.
You just denied access to the wilderness to my 18 year old son. He doesn't leave graffiti or diapers but he doesn't pay taxes either.

And don't say that sales taxes are enough, since illegal immigrants and people on welfare pay those.

Is your son not a US citizen? If you pay income taxes, then your children would be allowed to recreate in my approach.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:16 pm

Next time, instead of putting an Adventure Pass on my dashboard I think I will put out my W-2 in protest

BTW, some kids do pay taxes. I was paying income taxes when I had a paper route at 12

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:38 pm

Kit Fox wrote:Is your son not a US citizen? If you pay income taxes, then your children would be allowed to recreate in my approach.

I figured you'd call me on that one. I admit that my son is a citizen and could go into the woods with your approach. I'm sure he appreciates it!

I wanted to pull, or at least tweak, your chain a bit because I do not agree with your idea at all. I could have picked a better example.

I have hiked in the Swiss Alps although I was neither citizen nor taxpayer in Switzerland. I am very thankful that they are enlightened enough to allow visitors in their mountains. FWIW, I left nether graffiti nor diapers.

Also FWIW, I have taken a number of foreign visitors into our mountains and they appreciated it too. I made sure that they left nether graffiti nor diapers.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:03 pm

AlanK wrote:I have hiked in the Swiss Alps although I was neither citizen nor taxpayer in Switzerland. I am very thankful that they are enlightened enough to allow visitors in their mountains.

Yeah, I don't think we need to get to the point of checking if you pay taxes or are a citizen. By sharing our unique natural beauty with foreign visitors (and our own people), a lot of good will is created. This is why I think our forests should be for the common good and why I feel so strongly that we should not have user fees. People need a place to go, relatively free and un-fettered from society's pressures. User fees just messes this all up.

As for graffiti and diapers, we just need better enforcement. Start writing those $1000 littering fines. Don't let people register their cars if they don't pay. But I know, it's not an easy problem to solve. Sheesh, I wish karma would work instantly. Spray paint on a rock and have a bigger rock fall on your head right then and there.

Kit Fox · Post by **Kit Fox** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm

I'm the last person to encourage inceased govt. encroachment on my life.

My original post was "tongue in cheek."

I'm sure many of you see the same people destroying the forest as I do. My example of a place ruined is Big Rock Creek, near Valyermo California. This spot has become the party spot for Gangbangers who grafitti all the rocks with gang signs written in Spanish. I used to flyfish their, but all the rock dam/ swimming pools have ruined the traditional flows.

Hiking along the creek reveals hundreds of toilet paper flowers, trash, and used diapers. Enforcement is non-existant. The area is considered "un-incorporated" so Palmdale Sheriff's Station will not patrol it. The Forest Police are nowhere to be seen, and i've only seen on CHP in years. I've literally seen 50 vehicles parked in no-parking areas, without Adventure Passes. I've counted as many as 20 barbeques by the stream even though fires of any sort are not permitted.

I actually don't mind the Adventure Passes because I've seen the improvements made using those funds. I much rather they develop a system to keep dirtbags out of the forest.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:33 pm

Kit Fox wrote:I'm the last person to encourage inceased govt. encroachment on my life.

I think we'd all like to see increased government enroachment on the lives of people who ruin the wilderness. Or the cities, for that matter.