Dear HCN,
Diane Pietrasanta says
that her wilderness fee program in the Sierra should generate
enough revenue to “pay five or six seasonal rangers where there
would have been none” (HCN,
2/14/00: Land of the fee).
I think the
real issue is not “should we charge fees?” or “how much should we
charge?” but rather “why would there have been no seasonal rangers
without the fee revenue?” In other words, why isn’t Congress
adequately funding outdoor recreation programs in the
agencies?
The Forest Service’s last RPA report
for the period 1995-2000 estimated that recreation would account
for 75% of the estimated Gross Domestic Product generated by the
national forests in 2000. This contribution is far from being
reflected in the agency budget.
Certain
recreation user fees may hold some potential for good, but policy
makers in Congress, and the agencies implementing those fee
policies, need to address serious and valid concerns before
deciding to make fee legislation
permanent.
Steven
Martin
Arcata, California
The writer is an associate professor in the Natural Resources Planning and Interpretation Department at Humboldt State University.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Why does Congress starve public lands?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
