AT LEAST ONE CONGRESSMAN THINKS SO
Time to Kill the RAT?
By Bill Schneider, 2-19-07
 | |
|
The ever-growing controversy over the Bush administration’s pay-for-play policy and efforts to make our public lands “sustainable” with recreation fees has hit another milestone. At least one member of Congress wants to repeal the law that makes it all possible, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) or RAT, Recreation Access Tax, as it’s called by detractors, and start over with a system that the public endorses and that Congress passed the old-fashioned way, by voting on it, otherwise known as democracy.
As the federal government rolls out its new America the Beautiful Pass, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) wants to go the opposite direction and eliminate fees. He thinks the Forest Service can’t see the forest through the fees.
DeFazio has tried twice earlier to spike FLREA, but has gotten nowhere in the Republican Congress. Now, with the Democrats at the helm, he thinks he can get to the finish line.
“Outside of parks or developed campsites...I don’t believe we should charge fees to access public lands,” DeFazio told the Willamette Week, a independent weekly newspaper in Portland, Oregon. “We should be paying for, and investing in, facilities out of general funds.” The article was titled, Fee Fi Fo Dumb.
The Forest Service raises about $50 million per year in recreational fees, and most people assume this money goes to build, improve and maintain recreational facilities, but in late January, the FS admitted that the agency was spending almost two years worth of recreation fees, $93 million, on a secret planning process that results in closure and privatizing of thousands of recreational sites.
“Originally they made the case that there would be a good, solid budget, and the fee would add to that for projects they couldn’t get to,” DeFazio says. “But Congress pulled back on funding for recreation.”
DeFazio, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, is enraged that the House or Senate could never vote on FLREA because it was never introduced as a separate bill. Instead, in 2004, republicans attached it in committee to a must-pass spending bill.
This time the Oregon congressman has a plan to replace the $50 million in revenue generated by the RAT, which was one reason his earlier attempts have failed. This time around, he hopes to raise the lost money with “a small royalty” on mining operations on federal lands.
Currently, mining companies still operate and take possession of federal land under the archaic Mining Law of 1872 and pay very small royalties for what was formerly public property.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
And Bill, RSFMP is not a 'secret' program, its been posted on the USFS website for three years. If thats how they keep secrets, how do they promote things???
Also, the FS and its bosses kept RSFMP closely under wraps until just a few months ago, and if green groups had not of blown the whistle, the agency probably would still not be saying anything about it, even though some of the forest-specific plans are already done and being implemented. Fortunately, now, public uproar has caused the FS to "pause" and finally do ask for public input, but for the first four years, nothing, or almost nothing. Definitely nothing to make sure the public had any clue what was happening. I've talked to several FS people who objected to this and agreed the agency was purposely hiding this program because they knew exactly what would happen. And it did.....Bill
For years the recreationalists have screamed bloody murder that ranchers (food producers) and the timber industry were not paying "enough" to use the forests, while for the most part recreation was paid for by the taxpayer, not the participant. Sharing the forests allowed folks to recreate for free, but too many hated to share, and pushed the paying folks out. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and you have to pay too.
The thing is while the fees paid by timber and grazing werent' speicified for recreation, they helped keep NPS funded overall, and recreationalists did not have to pay. I know NPS claims that they are losing money on timber and on grazing fees, but I'll bet if you tracked appropriations for NPS you would see they went up in direct proportion to timber money going down. The same is going to happen with grazing, the more grazing money is eliminated, the more they are going to have to charge recreationalists. I doubt if a single person is laid off as a result of decresing timber sales or grazing rights.
Good trailheads and hiking paths have to be built, so guess what it actually costs money, and I don't think the taxpayer should foot the bill, especially if they are unable to get in because they need to drive for time, physical reasons or whatever.