Is this an editorial comment or a news article?

"RAT" is a propaganda term used in this debate. Its one thing to mention that it is what the detractors call it, another to use it in the title of the article.

Tim, if you check out Bill's chronology on the topic of public lands fees you will see it is hardly the first time he has used the term RAT in a title. Bill is a columnist, not a news reporter and he clearly has a position on this issue, which he is free to express. Besides, How the heck do you pronounce "FLREA" anyway?
See Bill's chronology at
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/recreation_fee_chronology/C41/L41/

"FLREA. FLREA. I JUST MET A GAL NAMED FLREA. I LIFTED UP HER GOWN. GENTLY LAID HER DOWN. ANNNNNND NOWWW I HAVE FLREA. OH, FLREA. A TERRIBLE CASE OF FLREA. I HOPE I DON'T GET DIARRHEA. OR A GHASTLY GONORRHEA. IT'S TOUGH TO BE ME-A...FLREA, MY HOMELY FLREA. MY MISUNDERSTOOD FLREA" From the song "FLREA" from the play "New West Website Story." Adapted from the book "Skin 'er Back, Soldier!" written by the late author Lance D'Ouinni. The book was adapted to the theater by playwright Penny Sicilian.

"I GOT FLREA FROM A FLORIST IN THE FOREST, COLLECTING SPECIMENS FOR THE POOREST. FLREA. IT WAS HIS IDEA. OH, PARTLY MINE BUT HIS MOREST. TO BE ABLE TO FLAIL, ON IDEAS FROM ABIGAIL, MY FLORIST IN THE FOREST TO NAIL, THE BLAME ON OUR ABIGAIL, SHE HE MOST DEPLORIST. CHARGING ME, AND THEE, DID SHE, TO GAIN FUNDS TO BURN THE FOREST. AN NGO WHORIST IN THE FOREST, WITH INTENT TO DEFOREST. I WANT NO MORIST. FLREA. FLREA. I DON'T WANT TO SUBMIT TO FLREA. I'D RATHER HAVE FOREST FOR FREE-A. TO USE IT FOR FREE-A. A PLEASE NO MORE FLREA.

I will blame this on Friday Nite Lites and Campo Viejo, RESERVA 2001, Tempranillo
A nice bottle of Spanish red wine....for my red whine....my Red State Whine.....now a Blue State Rebuke.. deserving of a Blue State ---- (4 letters, rhymes with "duke"). Pasta Night. Much better than Pasta Stone. Just another geriatric joke.

Sometimes the Feds are such a joke that we have to joke about it, just to maintain some sort of sanity. You know it will take 20 years of toll collections just to pay for the studies about whether or not to collect the tolls. Let alone the lawsuits. Maybe a chance for the Supremes to issue an opinion. Doo dah. Doo dah. Where are those Camptown ladies singing tonight?

So, what's the criticism for having the users of public land pay instead of penalizing both users and non-users? Should not the people who benefit the most, pay the most?
Secondly, I don't recall there being a loud voice in those that would like to repeal fees for recreation users of state parks. If they're to have a right to charge fees to make up for budget shortfalls, why cannot the BLM or FS?
Why cannot those same groups address the root of the problem by lobbying for an uncreased budget of the federal land agencies?
Those who claim that the federal agencies are incorrectly applying the law may have a claim, however it should not be distorted into a case for repeal of the law.

Justin,
Let's take your "user pays" reasoning a step farther.
Why have free public libraries? Many people who pay taxes for them never check out a book, and hey, most people can afford to just buy books at Barnes & Noble anyway. The ones who can't probably can't read.
Why have publicly funded fire departments? Let those whose houses are on fire provide the 911 operator with a credit card if they want a fire truck to come.
Schools. If I can afford to send my kid to private school, why should I be taxed to fund public schools?
Why make all taxpayers pay for FEMA? Let those who are hit by hurricanes, floods, tornados, and forest fires pay for disaster aid, most of us aren't affected!
You see where I'm going with this. The discussion should be about whether public lands are in the same category as libraries, fire departments, schools, and disaster aid: things that provide sufficient benefit to our society as a whole that they are worthy and proper recipients of public funding.
I think that public lands are worthy of public funding even by people who seldom or never use them. You may disagree. The problem is, we've never been given a chance to have that discussion. Fee Demo and FLREA were both passed as midnight riders on must-pass appropriations bills. One point of view was forced on us without open discussion or a vote. That's not the way major changes in public policy are supposed to happen.

Kitty, I'm well aware of Bill's use of RAT and I have made the comment before that using a propaganda term like that decreases the legitimacy of the column.

I believe that less propaganda and more fact would do more to further the discussion, but I guess he disagrees. In the end, though, it is his column, so he can write whatever he wants to.

Sen Baucus got Weyerhaeuser's tax bill cut from 35% to 18%, and did the same for Plum Creek and others, in the Farm Bill. He has celebrated his accomplishment. It saved Weyco $172 million this year. And equal savings in percentage for other industrial timberland holders. Now, when DeFazio and the House Democrats demanded PILT be paid for by some savings or govt income, and set up the R's to shoot themselves in the foot on the PILT bill, it was where the money would come from that was the issue. The Ds made the Rs look like Oil Baron pimps, when in fact, the Ds have been pimping for the Timber Barons. The Democrats who control Congress, both bodies, should be held responsible. But won't be.

The Senate and House Democrats now want to have users pay to use public lands, because they don't want to use tax payer money. Well, all those people who voted to not log don't live here, either. There is a cost for any action. The USFS used to not cost the Feds money. Now they do. The action had a result, and the known result is way less money in the USFS budget and huge tax cost by allowing NGOs to live like public parasites on their tax forgiven donations and tax dodge Conservation Easement schemes.

Cowboy up, folks. The benefit was national, and the proposed use and value of not logging was presented as national. So users need not pay, in a fair world. All citizens and immigrants should pay with their taxes. Raise taxes on everyone to pay for free use of public lands. With Obama, that is going to happen anyway. That is his campaign promise.

That Baucus, and the House, pissed away hundreds of millions in Special Interest tax breaks to the Timber Barons in the 2009 Farm Bill must be noticed and accounted for. Having users pay to ride or hike in public lands is a disgrace, and in light of the special interest tax reductions, in light of the fewer dollars to the Treasury, I guess the American people should look to their Democrat politicians for relief. Weyerhaeuser, Plum Creek Timber, all got relief. So where is the general public's relief in public land use?

This is not propaganda. It is facts, and the truth. Timber Barons got vast tax reductions by a Democrat Congress, and public lands are proposed to fee-to-use recreational lands. Something is very, very wrong with that concept.

Kitty, you make a great point. Although I do believe it is fair reasoning, in the case of recreational access of public lands. I gladly pay to enter NPS land and I surely value my experiences on FS land much more than NPS.
If FLREA was passed as you say, then I would in fact be in favor of an open debate on the floors of Congress to revise the bill. Or repeal it if decided. The more I think about it, the more this seems like the politically easiest, way to address budget shortfalls.
Instead of a kneejerk reaction against FLREA, I'd like to see a constructive approach to resolving budget issues, through revenue-generation or taxes. Maybe the anti-FLREA folks are, but I'm not hearing much of it

Justin: why not first start with NOT reducing billionaire corporate taxes to Weyerhaeuser and Plum Creek and their ilk, at a time when there is not enough money to manage public lands. Weyco is heading to being a REIT no matter, and then the taxes are 15% and paid for by the stockholders, personally. Windfalls (bad pun) for Timber Barons seems like a poor choice for lawmakers wanting to enforce a pay-to-play on public lands, which they already own in every sense. The tax relief was a gift, or a payback, who knows, for Timber Barons, who thrive while the same public eliminated small business lumber companies existing on public timber, and a couple of hundred thousand family wage jobs NOT dependent upon exports of raw material or imports of finished goods.

Very funny, Bear Bait.

Tim,

I think if FLREA would have been passed in the light of day, with reasonable public input, actually voted on by Congress, there would not be any controversy about recreation fees, or RAT as it is, in fact, even if you might think it shouldn't be called that. That's why this hearing and the Bacus-Crapo bill are so important. We finally can do what the majority of people want, not what a few administration insiders want for public land users. If most people want fees to access public lands on top of their tax money, then so be it. End of story. But I doubt it.

And Justin, I agree completely.The FS should be funded properly through normal channels instead of putting pressure on district rangers to raise money for anything they want to do or that needs to be done, like maintain campgrounds, with more and more fees.

Bill

Bill: just keep an eye on Baucus. He is a known pork larder for special interests. If what you want is in there, and then a pile of money for Glendive commercial fishermen, or Malta prairie dog ranchers, watch out. Some nasty Republicans might try to torpedo the bill, or set him up to fail. It is an election year.

What exactly does "enhancement" mean? Stocking non native sportfish (at the expense of native fish) in rivers and lakes? Increasing populations of non native pheasents? More scenic pullouts alongside highways for those too lazy too hike? More benches and picnic tables for those who hate roughing it? More parking lots for RVs for those who don't want to sleep in tents? Our public lands are being tuned into playgrounds rather than being restored to wilderness. The outdoor experience is being altered to accomidate those who really don't want an outdoor experience but a luxury experience.