SENATOR SERIOUS ABOUT REPEALING RAT
Baucus Berates Recreation Fee Policy
By Bill Schneider, 4-21-07
 |
|
 | |
|
U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) is no fan of recreation fees. Or the Federal Lands Recreation Act (FLREA), often called the Recreation Access Tax or RAT by fee opponents.
FLREA or RAT, depending on whether you collect or pay the fees, was tacked on a must-pass spending bill in December 2004, creating the authority agencies now use to aggressively increase the number of fee-based recreation sites and to substantially increase in existing fees.
But unlike many other politicians who oppose the recreation fees as a method for funding federal agencies, Baucus is seriously considering doing something about it. Something like, repealing it.
Max and I go way back, to the early 1980s, when he was in my Governor’s Cup Marathon Clinic and probably ran fastest marathon ever, 3:01:18, by any sitting U.S. Senator. One of the fastest, no doubt.
So, when his press manager, Barrett Kaiser, set me up to have coffee with Max earlier today, he warned me that his boss only had 30 minutes. Translate: use it wisely. Nonetheless, we had to talk about running, and how bummed I was that he outlasted me. Max still wants to do a hundred-miler, and I’m so lame I can’t run around the block. Where’s the fairness in that?
Anyway, back to business. Only 15 minutes left!
“It’s all wrong,” Max answers when asked about escalating recreation fees on federal lands. “These are public lands, and public lands are for the public. People pay for them with their taxes. They shouldn’t have to pay for them twice.”
His family holdings are intermingled with public lands north of Helena, and he also talked about how close proximity to public lands increase private property values.
“Public lands are what distinguishes Montana from other states and other countries,” Baucus said, “Fees shouldn’t be used to keep people off their lands. I’ve already expressed my concern about these fees to Gail Kimball (new chief of the Forest Service).
“Fees are the cousin of privatization,” Baucus believes. “I sort of view us (members as Congress) as the hired hands who take care of public lands for the people who own them.”
Critics of RAT has long believed that the incremental process of “demonstrating” recreation sites (i.e. start charging fees), increasing existing fees, and turning over some sites to private operators, who will charge fees, is gradually privatizing and commercializing the public lands. The Bush administration has strongly pushed fee-charging policies, seeking what has been termed “full cost recovery.”
The end result, critics claim, is national parks and forest becoming steadily less accessible and affordable to lower and middle income Americans.
So what to do about it? With only two or three minutes left, I asked Max that question and was surprised by his answer.
“I’m considering introducing legislation to repeal it (FLREA),” he said.
Short pause.
“Seriously considering it, I should say.”
Another pause.
“In fact, I’ll probably do it.”
At that point, he turned to his staff and asked how this might be done, and we had a short discussion of introducing a bill to repeal FLREA and seeing what would happen and speculating that amendments could be offered by opponents to change the emphasis of the law.
Which should be, according to Baucus, allowing fees for real services like staying in a developed campground, but disallowing most other fees.
I didn’t say this, but I was thinking Max would be the perfect ball carrier for such legislation. With the recent democratic takeover of Congress, the senior senator from Montana now holds the powerful position of chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has long tenure in the Senate, and hails from one of the key public lands states in the West.
“If I decide to do it,” he said as our time ran out and his press people wanted him to move on, “You’ll be the first to know.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
It is good to hear that Baucus will "probably" introduce legislation to repeal REA. Thats much more productive than expressing his concerns to Kimball. I'm not sure what he expects her to do about fees if that is how the president and congress tell her to fund her operations.
I remember when one annual Corp pass would allow access on all the Corp lakes - that we all paid for and maintained for years.
I was not brought down by any of the usual suspects, but a pesky little calf muscle. You can read my swan song by searching NewWest.net for The Finish Line You Never Want to See.
Here's the link...
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/the_finish_line_you_never_want_to_see/
The moral of the story is: Old Runners Never Die; They Just Become Cyclists.
I ran the Boston Marathon in 1977, and since the mere mention of the words makes me nostalgic, here is a little story I haven't shared with many people.
I'm a country boy, you know, so after my big city marathon, I decided to do something very adventurous, ride a subway for the first time in my life, at rush hour, no less, to the airport.
The gentleman in the business suit next to me spotted me as an out-of-towner and likely marathon runner, perhaps because I had to walk down the stairs backwards, and started asking me questions…Where am I from? What do I do for a living? How do I like Boston? You know, all the usual stuff.
After answering a few questions, I decided to ask, "So, what do you do here in Boston??
"I'm the Governor," he said.
And his name was Michael Dukakis, Ten years later, he ran for President, beating out Al Gore and Gary Hart in the primary, and then losing badly to the First Bush.
I often wonder how many governors ride the subway to work.
Bill
P.S. Sorry you like the RAT. I think it should go down, so we can start over with a reasonable recreation fee policy.
Commercial users have paid the cost, but obviously they are not going to pay for what they cannot use, so it is up to those who are allowed to use the land, to pay the bill. Believe me it would be cheaper to share.
And therein lies the problem. I don't like fees. I don't like taxes. But I don't mind paying my fair share either...if the money is going to be used to improve access, paint the pit toilet at the trail head that hasn't been painted in years, improve habitat, remove trash etc. Frankly, I am so sick and tired of my hunter or rancher friends telling me that if it weren't for their fees there would be no habitat, maintenance or forest at all for that matter; and how when I go out for a hike, to take photos or have a picnic, that I am a "freeloader". I'm tired of the majority of concern and effort from Fish and Game going to game species because that's where the money is, while non game species concerns are basically ignored unless they're on the endangered species list.
Giving a voice to all of us who just want to SEE the wildlife, not shoot it; and just WALK through the native grass, not feed it to our bovines.
If that was where the fee was going I wouldn't mind paying it. I wouldn't mind at all.
Frank, it may annoy you to be told all that is done by ranchers and hunters, but the fact is license fees cover a very large part of the cost of wildlife management , at least in our state, and probably in others. The grazing fees don't hurt either.
Where would the money come from if not from entrance and use fees?
The system worked well for so many years because the lands were shared by those who paid to use them, and those who did not. Unfortuantely environemental groups have systematiclly pushed everyone else out and lo and behold there is no money except tax money coming in.
I suppose in your ideal world timber companies would continue to pay even if they are shut out, and ranchers would pay a grazing fee, but keep their livestock home. It just isn't going to happen. Elitists should have thought of that before everything was made roadless to keep from "ruining the experience with noise" for them.
Now instead of timber companies paying to harvest timber we are paying big bucks to fight fires with no return. Instead of ranchers controlling weeds and keeping water supplies open, we have to pay government employees to do that with no money returned.
Instead of charging a fee to use ATVs, and Snowmachines in the forest, they are pushed out. Instead of familes paying to drive into a campgorund for a 1 day trip with their kids, the roads are eliminated and that income is gone.
Selfishness has it's own price. Everyone could pay when everyone could use the forests, but not when it has been set aside for only elitists who have lots of time to hike and leave thier waste all over the back country.
Also, he thought we had to buy his firewood he got on our land for free. I complained to the district ranger. Now the hosts are making reservations for our campgrounds on internet like a private RV park. The USFS wants us to pay more due to their 'poor management'. To make it worst most of the campgrounds were upgraded and rebuilt by the Anaconda Job Corps.The money doesn't even come out of the Forest Service budget. They have a separate appropriation and do great work. Let them manage the campgrounds and no more hosts. The Forest Service drives around in their vehicles and won't even get out to put up a "this is your public land" sign, one is a GS13.
The increased fees being promoted by the new Chief in Washington who was in Missoula prevents our young people from campimg. Camping only for the wealthy is that the USFS plan? Then the wealthy 'tip' the host for saving "their spot".The campground program needs an overhaul and no fee increases.Our public land is becoming more and more "privatized" and I for one don't like it.
Actually I think that you ARE a closet environmentalist! You care about the outdoors and at least some wildlife. You don't want to see our forests trashed. You CRIED when 264 died. You take beautiful photos of the natural world. If you didn't care you wouldn't be reading these blogs and posting on them. We may disagree on more than we agree on, but we both care.
Kitty, I agree with most of your last post. Indeed, what about driving on the interstate? Should we charge users? You could go on and on. But don't try to blame these fees on a democratic administration. Clinton may have been in office, but these fees were conceived by a Republican and passed by a Republican congress and attached to an unrelated bill. In 2005 they were made permanent through back door dealings of another REPUBLICAN congress.
There are many reasons that folks cannot or do not hike into wilderness areas. Health is one and free time is another. There are many folks working 5-6 days per week 50-52 weeks a year. They do not have the time nor the resources to spend days on end hiking. So all they get is to help pay for someone else's fun because elitists do not like the sound of vehicles, so they may be able to walk an hour to nowhere, and the environmentalists will enjoy the river or lake and the quiet.
So called environmentalists only see the problems others cause not themselves, they worry about a motor, but when did you ever hear one concerned about the amount of human waste they themselves are leaving behind? Or the impact of wildlife that has tried to stay hidden in the back country?
I cannot tell you how many times residents of this area have been told if they do not like wolves or grizzlies on their own property eating their pets or livestock to get out. Is that caring about the environment or one's own ego and power?
I think timbering did far more good for forests than the beetles that are now being raised and the resulting terrible fires.
Everyone was able to use when we had multi use, now it has become pretty much only those able to hike and back pack.
Stepping in a cow pie seems like a pretty cheap price when you think of it. Sharing the forests means sharing the cost, exclusive use means exclusive paying...or should anyway.
Motorized conveyances are allowed on more than 95% of all land in this country. Wilderness areas comprise less than 4.7% of land. For every place that you cannot take your ATV or snowmobile, I can name you ten where you can. These wilderness areas are the last places that average folks can go for some peace and quiet from the sounds of the modern world. (Rich folks have nice quiet spots on their 500 acre spreads I'm sure....places that I'M LOCKED OUT OF). And people do go! Over 12 million people a year visit wilderness areas. They spend millions of dollars in surrounding communities. They enjoy hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, exploring, stargazing under crystal clear skies, rock climbing, photography, wildlife watching, snowshoeing, skiing. All blissfully undisturbed by screaming, stinking, gasoline powered beasts. Most wilderness areas allow livestock grazing, and many have at least some wheelchair accessible trails. These areas protect vital wildlife habitat and watersheds. Jobs provided by wilderness areas include trail guides, outfitters and innumerable tourist, hunter and fishing related jobs in nearby communities. They provide the BEST FISHING AND HUNTING opportunities to be found anywhere.
Yet some folks would lead you to believe that this 4.7% of land is too much! Too much peace and quiet! They feel that they are being "picked on", discriminated against, because a measly 4.7% of our total land has been set aside for those of us who do not, and do not want, to ride ATV's and snowmobiles through pristine forests. 4.7% of our land for animals to be able to breed and raise their young in relative peace and quiet; OUTRAGEOUS! They feel that because we (all 12 million of us, and many more who look forward to doing it) prefer to ride a horse, or sit quietly under a tree watching elk graze, without the sounds of screaming machines within earshot; we must be some kind of environmentalist wacko freaks! Give me a break!!
I'm perfectly willing to pay for access to land I can use, you should do the same.
BTW, how much in state income taxes do you pay in Wyoming again? I know that I certainly pay my share here in Montana; along with a bit over 40% in federal. Guess I pay my share....and now that it's going where I want it to........
(BTW, I support our troops and I support the war on terrorism; just not the war in Iraq.)
Sorry, I'll shut up now!
First of all the elimination of those who pay to use to forests, namely the timber industry and the livestock industry has created a big need in income that they no longer have. No matter how you shake it they need that income replaced. The fewer folks that are able to use the forests, the more income they need from each. It is that simple.
They also keep out the family in their beat up old car with one day off. Laughing kids too much noise too?
By the way no we don't have an income tax, we have sales tax, which I think is probably the fairest tax of all, and the least able to finagle.