Business and the New Economy News

Bill, I think the "change" Obama was talking about is "small change", as in nickels and dimes. That's all we will have left after he squanders the rest of our money.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone thinks that certain folks are entitled to have exclusive access to public lands and then demand that those folks locked out pay their way.

Bad analogy there. The rental car company actually owns the car.

Really? Obama keeping the fees intact surprise you? Obama is a tax and spend liberal. Plain, simple and to the point. This administration is not going to give up a cash cow............

People do not value what they don't have an investment of either time or money in. We need to make it pay as well as possible, if our indebtedness keeps going up & up, China will foreclose. OUr country is in trouble, we cannot expect others to keep subsidizing recreation.

(Good heavens. I'm going to break a personal rule, here, and argue on the internet.)

Let's be clear: are President Obama's environmental policies everything that left-ist environmentalists had "hoped" for? No. Does that mean he hates national forests? No. The suggestion that Mr. Obama's environmental policies have so far been the same as Mr. Bushs' is hyperbolic, at best. Ken Salazar is no Edward Abbey, true--but also no Gale Norton.

To read Mr. Schneider's repeated polemics against the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), you'd think the act a bald-faced and pernicious attack on Americans' access to public lands.

It's not. Rather, the FLREA is simply a manifestation of the free-market/capitalist belief that user fees best allocate scarce resources between competing users. Nothing more, nothing less.

The grounds for reasonable arguement, here, is over the term "best". A free market environmentalist believes "best" to mean "most efficient". Mr. Schneider, it seems, believes "best allocation" to mean "most egalitarian". Disagree with the free market allocation scheme, then, naturally follows.

The economics of the matter is clear: assuming 1) sufficient crowding to reduce ALL USERS' enjoyment of a given recreation area / public land (owing to dislike of forests teeming with mall-like masses, or simply because crowds imply more impact, litter, overflowing parking lots, etc.); and 2) the availability of good (less crowded) substitutes (there's plenty of public lands around Mount Lemmon area), THEN charging a user fee will actually increase the total amount of utility (roughly: enjoyment) users get from a fee-affected area.

The short explanation is: user fees mean fewer users, but more enjoyment for those fewer users. Let me try to explain:

Let's use Mount Lemmon (or, specifically the Sky Island National Scenic Byway) as an example. Given Mount Lemmon's relative proximity to Tucson, let's say that, on a given weekend, recreators will flock to Mount Lemmon up until the point that Mount Lemmon is so crowded that recreators are indifferent between going to Mount Lemmon and, let's say, nearby Catalina State Park (which, we assume, can accomodate many users and is not threatened by overcrowding).

Now, suppose the introduction of a High Impact Recreation Area (HIRA) user fee of, say, $20 for Mount Lemmon. Those who were previously indifferent between a crowded Mount Lemmon and an uncrowded Catalina State Park now go to Catalina. Those who get $20 worth of enjoyment from a less-crowded Mount Lemmon will now be indifferent between Mount Lemmon and Catalina.

Here's the difference, though. Those who get greater than $20 worth of enjoyment from a less crowded Mount Lemmon than Catalina State Park are now much better off. If one was previously indifferent between a free but crowded Mount Lemmon and Catalina State Park, but gets $30 worth of enjoyment from hiking in a less crowded Mount Lemmon, this person gets $10 worth of pleasure from the Mount Lemmon area that, if not for the fee, nobody would get in the absence of the fee.

In short, the user fee allocates a scare recreation area from those who value it less to those who value it more. When crowded, nobody gets much enjoyment (relative to other alternatives) from the area. When less crowded, at least a few people get considerable enjoyment.

(I'm sorry if I've explained this poorly--the concept certainly deserves better explanation.)

My point is simply this: there's nothing pernicious about the FLREA. The lawmakers who drafted and voted for the FLREA, I'll wager, love our public lands and resources as much as any who argue against recreational area taxes. They just happen to hold the view that user fees are the best (i.e. "most efficient") way to preserve and ensure access to our national treasures.

For my part, I love our national forests and parks. The only reason I've felt outrage about the increased fees for, say, privitized campgrounds in our national parks, is that I grew up paying $6, and now I have to pay $18. But if I'd grown up with the expectation that staying in an improved campground with such amenities as a fire-pit, clean, painted table, toilet, water, etc. cost $18, I'd have no quibbles. Better a campground priced at marginal cost than no campground at all.

(Let the flaming begin...)

First of all, my utmost appreciation to Bill Schneider for keeping this issue front and center and to those of you who have commented I am grateful for your dialogue in the process.

It is my firm belief this is all about how our public servants choose to collect and spend our money. Our public land needs to be taken care of and the Forest Service spends money on a variety of priorities.
More and more is spent fighting forest fires and less and less is spent taking care of the forest. As an example the forest in my neighborhood has seen scant trail maintenance funds since the 70's. I am in a volunteer organization and we maintain and take care of the trails. The point is, the Forest Service could take care of the woods, the trails, the trees, and run the campgrounds at no charge if their budget and allocation was done with a different set of priorities.
I just don't have an answer for who our how this might happen. Hopefully you might have some thoughts.

User fees for public land recreation are cool because: 1. Fees are fairer than broad based taxes. Users pay. Non users don't pay. 2. You don't need a massive bureaucracy to allocate limited maintenance and improvement resources. More used campgrounds or trails aromatically get more resources. 3. Users fees can be means tested so that very low income people get a discount or free pass.

Mickey, you accidentally nailed it on the head with your cute misspelling:
"More used campgrounds or trails aromatically get more resources."

The whole endeavor does have a certain aroma, doesn't it?

The concept of "user pays" has its place in our culture, and its place is in the market. Public lands were not set aside for anyone's profit, they are supposed to be a place where we are all equally welcome, rich and poor alike. If we're going to throw that concept out, just sell them to Disney and be done with it. Quit pretending they are public lands. Under "user pays" they are the property of the Forest Service and the other agencies, not the people.

Ranchers, miners, and loggers take away something of commercial value from the land and should reimburse the public for that extraction.

ORV users to me are in the same category as hikers and equestrians when they are using multi-purpose roads and trails, i.e. no fee for general access.

When they are using a specialized facility that is designed for and open to only them, then yes, there should be a fee for that. That applies to specialized facilities for other users too, like groomed x-c ski trails, groomed snowmobile trails, and camping in developed campgrounds.

It's the fees for general access to dispersed undeveloped country just to go for a hike or ride in the woods that is at issue here.

Sorry, Kitty your rationalization is used by those who want to sponge off of the taxpayers. Every single user of national forests gains a benefit to themselves of one kind or anothers, all should pay.
Trailheads, trails, clean up, etc have to be paid for for welfare hikers the same as everyone else, so they need to pony up their fair share.

PUBLIC lands are those that are held in trust for the PUBLIC by the government, as stewards of the land. We pay taxes for this stewardship. Charging additional fees or selling off lands without the permission of the Public should be cause for criminal complaint!

well what did you guys expect from a negro? anything good? i didnt. you get what you vote for.