Dear HCN,
It is clear that even
flush times don’t lead legislators to significantly increase base
funding when programs like “fee demo” appear to be working. When
federal appropriations decline again, and belts have to tighten,
these fee programs will be an excuse for reducing base
appropriations.
Managers would be better served
by clearly explaining their needs, and asking congressional
appropriators to do their job by appropriating the funds needed.
Maybe this sounds simplistic, but it can
work.
Yellowstone Park’s Mike Finley has done a
good job of securing increased appropriations in part because he’s
done such a good job of explaining why he needs the
money.
Ultimately, my opposition to fee demo is
more than simply my criticism of it as a questionable fiscal
strategy. I fear that fee demo will further erode the mission of
land management agencies by turning them more into “service
providers’ than resource managers. And in a country of increasingly
savvy consumers, paying customers are going to demand more and more
“satisfaction” from the agencies.
Once upon a
time, the mission of park and forest recreational managers was to
provide people an opportunity to experience the life-altering
qualities of the wilderness and to develop self reliance. I am
troubled by the fee-for-service trajectory that will have resource
managers developing front-country facilities to cater to the tastes
of consumer society while other key resource management needs go
wanting.
Jay
Chamberlin
Boonville,
California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Fees skew the public lands mission.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
