NW Forest Fees

“message forwarded:
---------------------

Five days ago, our friends at Free Our Forests (www.freeourforests.org) created an Internet "Petition Against User Fees On Public Lands". As of
this morning, the petition had already gathered 190 signatures. This is
remarkable, given the short time and limited exposure the petition has had.

Now the trick is to multiply this number 100 fold or, hopefully, much
more than that!

Due to the urgency with which we must communicate to Congress the widespread
opposition to Fee-Demo, we enhusiastically support the use of the new Internet petition which appears at
http://www.petitiononline.com/feedemo/petition.html .

We encourage you to not only sign this petition, but to make the existence
of this petition widely known. Filling out the Internet petition takes
but a moment. For those who'd prefer to sign a paper petition, we encourage you
to download and use our older petition.

Thanks very much for your help and support.

Scott”

“I like the fees as long as the money is used for the location were it was collected. I mean the specific area not the general area. If I pay to park a trailhead the money needs to go to maintaining that trail and not to built an outhouse for the car campers or for a new photocopier for the rangers office. Car camper (including me if that be what I am doing) can pay for their own facilities. Taxes I already pay can buy the copier. Season pass holders could designate the areas they frequent most.”

“The last time I stopped by a ranger station I talked with the person there for a good hour on fees. I have no problem paying to use a trail. But what gets me is when I have to pay $10 to get into the park, and then $5 to park, and then a backcountry premit, and then money for each person in your party/nite.

According to the ranger, or whoever she was at the ranger station most of the money collected just goes into a general fund for the park. It doesn't go to any specific trail. Of course like everything there are advantages to this, they can make new trails with that money, but I would rather see them maintaining the ones they got.

The parks are loosing alot of money because they are no longer allowed to log. Good thing, bad thing, I don't know and that really isn't the discussion of this thread, but they do need money somehow. It's a intersting debate, and I have been watching it un fold for quite sometime now.

Okay I am done, and if nothing makes any sense it is because I have been up for 31 hours now. I am going to bed. Good night!”

“I think java meant ?forests? not ?parks?. I don?t think that they ever permitted logging in national parks. Maybe he?s talking about state parks. He doesn?t know, he?s been up for 31 hours.

Boise Cascade announced today that they are permanently closing two mills in Idaho. A bunch of people out of work. Reason, can?t get enough logs. Here is the kicker, the state sales logs on state owned land to raise money for education. Because of the mill closures those logs are worth a lot less. Who ever buys them will need to haul them farther meaning that they can?t pay as much and still make money. Result: saving the environment (good thing) results in less money for education (bad thing). I wonder if they will tax hikers to make up the difference.”

“Oh Man!! not this again! People do some digging. These fees are NOT, what they appear.

If you value your forests, you will take the time to find out who is really going to gain by these fees.

The A.R.C. is enemy here. Go to www.wildwildernes.org or the Free our Forest site and DO some homework!

PEACE”

“And not to the mention the economic benefits of recreation to local communities far out weighs the benefits seen from logging:

http://www.onrc.org/info/econstudy/”

“Timber "sales" on Natl Forest land generally lose money.
The Forest Service builds and maintains roads and the fees from timber sales don't usually come close to covering those costs.

Public schools ought to be fully funded by taxpayers, they benefit from education, or pay for a lack of it.

While timber "sales" are "necessary", they DO NOT "make" money for the Forest Service.
We the people subsidize the timber industry.
The timber industry DOES provide products for comsumption.
They SERVE only themselves.”

“I will not argue the national forest logging issue. I don?t know enough about whether or not the USFS make money. The Idaho State owned forest is another issue. These are lands that are owned by the state specifically as an investment for education. The taxpayers own them so when logging makes money it is the taxpayers money. In short, logging of state land for funding education is taxpayers funding education. That is unless you are one that believes that the money in government accounts does not belong to the people. This is not a road issue either. These state land have had roads for a long time. There is nothing wrong with the state system of using logging on state land to fund education. They also lease out vacation home sites on state land. The land is an investment and these are the method of getting a return on those investments. The land were not acquired for the purpose of preservation. They are essentially tree farms.

I was wrong once before but : The FS does not build logging roads. They do build and maintain roads, but these are used by backpackers, hunters, boaters, fisherman and sightseers as well as loggers. Logging roads are built by the loggers to get out the cut. When the logging is done the roads are blocked with locked gates and soon become over grown (soon by forest standards). They are still a scar on the land and are a problem but they are not maintained by the FS. In my part of the world the FS road inventory would not be reduced by the elimination of all logging. To many others use these roads. Some loggers use helicopters and build no roads.

I am not defending logging but my house is built of wood so it would be hypocritical for me to condemn all logging. I am for preservation of wild lands but I am not talking about wild lands. And yes the timber industry serves only themselves, they don?t do it for fun. They do it for money like any other industry in a capitalist system. Now tom if you are against capitalism in general that is another question. Conservationists need to be accurate in their statements to stay credible.”

“Logging is good... they fill a need of our society for wood and wood products.

Less than 5% of our forest products come from public lands. Logging on public lands is a relatively new idea and one that the timber industry loves since the trees are readily available. In not all cases, but some, the Forest Service is required to provide access to the timber lots--which means building roads (not necessarily maintaining them).

Once logging is complete, these roads are still open and available to those like me who drive 4x4's and love to bounce around.

Most timber products come from timber-owned private land. Elimating logging on public lands will not hurt the timber industry. However, they are determined to cut the last 1% of our native Old Growth forests because its "convient" for them.”

“It all comes down to special interest. People squeek about what is near and dear to their hearts and the rest can booger off. I am like the rest, I have my own special interest and I will complain about negative influences on my area of concern.”

“The threat from loggers is NOTHING compared to the plans the A.R.C. has for public lands. Can you say "Disneyland"?
Sign the petition!”

“I'm a fee hater. I signed. Mary”

“Right On MaryPhyl!

It is not just a fee. It is a technique used to see just how willing abd how much and where people are willing to pay to recreate.

The percentage of the fee that actually gets used for the specified purpose is PATHETIC!!”

“A.R.C. = ????”

“mtn gal ,

it stands American Recreational Coilation, they are a recreational lobbying group that is back by some pretty influential groups that many have come to dislike. Those same people see this "fee" as the first steps towards having a "Disneyland" in every N.P.

And honestly I can't believe there will be a "Disneyland" inside of every major park. That is silly and a plain old hysteria tactic design to scare others. If you have not look in awhile the trend has been there for quite awhile. The "Disneyland" notion is already at the gates of many parks any way. If you have ever be to the Smokies or to the S. Rim area of GCNP you will know what I mean. There is $$$$$$ there that Uncle Sam is not reaping the full rewards from.

And what about all the corporations that are already inside a few the NP. All those concessionaire companies that are making $$$ on government land. Sure I imagine there is alittle price to be paid to own and operate a private biz in a NP, corporations wouldn't be there if there was no cash coming back to them.

I'm not big on the fee idea either, but I also don't want the lands LOCKED UP for only a few to enjoy. Lets just look for a happy medium!!!”

“Disneyland in the national parks, never let it be. The Idea, treating the scenery like an amusement ride. I can?t imagine standing in line to get on a park vehicle to be shown through Zion NP or Yosemite, selling of cheap tourist souvenirs and junk food, people in funny uniforms smiling and giving directions. No, don?t let it happen.

I say some comedy TV thing (candid camera I think) where they set up this wheel like the ones used to open large gate values at Old Faithful. When it was time for the geyser to blow, two guys walk over and started turning the wheel. When the eruption is to stop they turn it the other way. All right there in a crowd of tourists.