Sen. Larry Craig’s article about “Fees and our
forests don’t always fit” makes a few good points, although I
think that it misses some others.
What I do not understand
is the reluctance of Sen. Craig to support these user fees, since
according to him, activities like hunting, fishing and hiking are
done on “unimproved portions” of the forests. Doesn’t anyone
involved in these activities need a road to access the forests,
maybe some sanitary amenities at the trailheads, trails to hike,
bike or ride ORVs to the hunting spots or the fishing holes, the
collection of trash along these trails, et cetera? Who stocks the
lakes with fish? Who finances the establishment and the maintenance
of all these access roads, trails and amenities?
Traditionally, the financing of these Forest Service activities was
from taxes, but with the federal deficit being as high as it is,
the pressure to reduce expenditures in the Forest Service is high.
This is well demonstrated by the efforts to consolidate
administrative areas and reduce or outsource jobs. The maintenance
of the current facilities therefore cannot be guaranteed to
continue at levels we are accustomed to.
So, why not
charge a user fee to help the Forest Service to do what it needs
to? I urge Sen. Craig to support a permanent system of user fees
for the access of our national treasures.
Arthur
Kull
Idaho Falls, Idaho
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline What’s wrong with user fees?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
