Last Post 17 Sep 2014 07:27 AM by  WALTER EASON
no more fees
 5 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
WALTER EASON
Buzzard
Buzzard
Posts:581



--
10 Sep 2014 06:36 AM

    I was notified of this from Walt Wegner from PLP. This may seem that it does not effect mining claims but think about this. How is free camping around claims authorized (dispersed camping) this would include mining claims as the multiple use act comes into play. The more control to charge the less freedom we have as they become more responsible for the persons on public lands so they can protect the agency by controlling access. When you charge a fee or someone pays you for something you are assuming some sort of responsibility and control. This needs to be spread out to all recreation forums also. Do your best to inform the people that use public lands.

     

    Subject: No more fees, please!

     

    Escapees News Bulletin
    by Jim Koca, Advocacy Director

    As some Escapees are aware, a bill has been introduced in the United States Congress, HB 5204, entitled The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014, which will allow fees to be collected for most of the "public land" that is controlled by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. If the bill passes, it would allow the Federal Government to charge fees for any activity on land that we presently have access to for free. Fees could include a permit fee, day use fee, or a special use fee. There is the possibility that the bill could be attached to an appropriation bill, which would allow the bill to pass without public comment or debate.

    It is time now to get involved and contact your congressman and senators where you have your domicile and let them know that HB 5204 should! be defeated. In the past, public lands have been turned over to concessionaires that allowed them to charge fees or to refuse to give discounts for entering the federal lands. This bill may not pass, but don't take a chance and let the other members contact their congressman or senators. It only takes a few minutes to let the representatives that we elected know how we feel.

    To find your congressman, you can go to http://www.house.gov/, and for senators, you can go to http://www.senate.gov/.

    If you would like to review the bill yourself:
    https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5204/text

    ARTHUR WAUGH
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:967



    --
    10 Sep 2014 07:46 AM

    When you get to fees that are charged, they have to go through a public input process in a Recreation RAC of one type or another.  Our RAC has the authority to look at and impose fees in our area of responsibilty for BLM and on request, for the USFS.  The RAC's look at these requests and the public input on them seriously. The binder of the rules and regs for us is in a 1" binder.  Funding for upkeep, maintainance is an ever decreasing pot of $ and if people want to have the good things like restrooms, trash pickup, water, etc., the $ have to come from somewhere.

     

    It would be difficult to collect  fees from dispersed users and a real nightmare to try and control.  Even if the bill passes it is still up to the RAC's to approve, and if they don't then it is real tough for the USFS and BLM to impose them, but it can be done. 

     

    All the RAC's, be they Recreation or otherwise operate in the public eye and accept input anytime from anyone.  Find out from your local offices where your RAC's are located and stay involved with them.  They help the local offices make decisions on the ground as to how projects are done.

     

    Personally, I don't care for fees, but I can see the need for them since I have seen the budget issues the agencies face first hand being on a RAC.

     

    For those that don't know the acronym, RAC= Resource Advisory Council, usually made up of 15 civilian people representing all kinds of user groups and stakeholders.

    WALTER EASON
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:581



    --
    10 Sep 2014 09:14 AM
    This is a rewrite of the recreational act which would cause fees for entrance to public lands and fees for camp sites with amenities as well as charging for each mode of transportation you have with you. Looks like this could include each bicycle you have for your children to ride, motor cycles, quads, horses all could be charged by each one you have. This creates multiple fees which means you may have to pay more than one fee. If there is another mode of transportation is in your vehicle or trailer it looks like you would have to pay for that. Big change from current and I agree that BLM and Forestry are short of cash just as all agencies are but so is Joe public. One member of one of the Advisory Councils in the Council meeting one of the topics was on group sizes and what should constitute a group, The direction of answer was that any more than one person would be considered a group.  Fees in my opinion have gone to far, if you do not know where the money is going just look at the activities that are sponsored, not that activities are bad but not when they are the causation of going over budget not good. Keep budget until new items that are being added are covered by new monies.
    ARTHUR WAUGH
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:967



    --
    10 Sep 2014 12:22 PM

    As to where the fees go, something like 85% of the money collected is supposed to stay in the project area.  The other 15 % is either overhead to administer or is sent back to Washington.

     

    The budgets for recreation and support of recreation (trails, campgrounds, etc) is not a static number.  Every year the Forests and BLM Districts get less and less $, and very little discretion as to where it can be used.  Then you add on that every year the fire budget gets blown away in the first half of the season, then they raid every closet and dog house they can find to pay for the rest of the season.

     

    I was very much anti-fee when it first came out, but over the years have come around somewhat, and knowing what kind of money they have to work with every year and what is needed (as we get briefed at the RAC every year), I have come to support it in most cases.  They can't keep up with the rest of what they need to do with the reduction in people now.  The alternative is a whole lot of gates and locks, which would please the green side to the extent you would not believe.

     

    In the end it will be a personal decision for everyone when they talk/write the knotheads in DC, or they get with the agencies and RAC members, either you do or you don't support fees in the area you want to play in.  We are going to have to pay to play in some way, either in a fee that most of it stays in the area, or in higher taxes that Congress may appropriate to the agencies or not.

     

    Personally I figure that a group is more than 6 people, but it can vary by area, type of recreation in that area and the agency.

     

    SYLVESTER CULLEN
    Greenhorn
    Greenhorn
    Posts:



    --
    16 Sep 2014 07:02 PM
    This is EXACTLY why GPAA needs a lobbyist or two in Washington and put some actual skin in the game - instead of shoving all the heavy lifting off on the PLP and expect them to work wonders with GPAA's donations. (which they have, BTW.)
    WALTER EASON
    Buzzard
    Buzzard
    Posts:581



    --
    17 Sep 2014 07:27 AM

    I think PLP has a good handle on what needs to be done. That said the money that GPAA donates is better spent with organizations that are non-profits specifically in this field. This type of organization have their whole basis of existence and knowledge involved with legal actions. I would not want to take away from their funding to try to do the same with a private company. I do not know what a good lobbyist in the mining field would cost but a low end rate for a common type of project and average lobbyist for one project would be $100,000 per year. This would not take into account for special diners with congress persons. Looking on the internet I found this quote talking how it is not how it use to be. “Now, you’re lucky if organizing a $5,000-a-plate campaign fundraiser gets you 20 minutes alone with a ranking senator on an energy subcommittee to discuss ways to weaken nationwide renewable fuel standards,” Foraker added. “It’s just not as personal as it used to be.”

    The best thing for us would be more volunteers for the legal non profits and if miners would donate when they have it. If it is a 5 dollar bill that is good, just send it to PLP or which ever group you relate to best. There are several out there like PLP. The small amounts add up if it becomes a standard once in a while thing it becomes a big amount on the other end.

     

    You are not authorized to post a reply.