When you get to fees that are charged, they have to go through a public input process in a Recreation RAC of one type or another.  Our RAC has the authority to look at and impose fees in our area of responsibilty for BLM and on request, for the USFS.  The RAC's look at these requests and the public input on them seriously. The binder of the rules and regs for us is in a 1" binder.  Funding for upkeep, maintainance is an ever decreasing pot of $ and if people want to have the good things like restrooms, trash pickup, water, etc., the $ have to come from somewhere.

 

It would be difficult to collect  fees from dispersed users and a real nightmare to try and control.  Even if the bill passes it is still up to the RAC's to approve, and if they don't then it is real tough for the USFS and BLM to impose them, but it can be done. 

 

All the RAC's, be they Recreation or otherwise operate in the public eye and accept input anytime from anyone.  Find out from your local offices where your RAC's are located and stay involved with them.  They help the local offices make decisions on the ground as to how projects are done.

 

Personally, I don't care for fees, but I can see the need for them since I have seen the budget issues the agencies face first hand being on a RAC.

 

For those that don't know the acronym, RAC= Resource Advisory Council, usually made up of 15 civilian people representing all kinds of user groups and stakeholders.

This is a rewrite of the recreational act which would cause fees for entrance to public lands and fees for camp sites with amenities as well as charging for each mode of transportation you have with you. Looks like this could include each bicycle you have for your children to ride, motor cycles, quads, horses all could be charged by each one you have. This creates multiple fees which means you may have to pay more than one fee. If there is another mode of transportation is in your vehicle or trailer it looks like you would have to pay for that. Big change from current and I agree that BLM and Forestry are short of cash just as all agencies are but so is Joe public. One member of one of the Advisory Councils in the Council meeting one of the topics was on group sizes and what should constitute a group, The direction of answer was that any more than one person would be considered a group.  Fees in my opinion have gone to far, if you do not know where the money is going just look at the activities that are sponsored, not that activities are bad but not when they are the causation of going over budget not good. Keep budget until new items that are being added are covered by new monies.

As to where the fees go, something like 85% of the money collected is supposed to stay in the project area.  The other 15 % is either overhead to administer or is sent back to Washington.

 

The budgets for recreation and support of recreation (trails, campgrounds, etc) is not a static number.  Every year the Forests and BLM Districts get less and less $, and very little discretion as to where it can be used.  Then you add on that every year the fire budget gets blown away in the first half of the season, then they raid every closet and dog house they can find to pay for the rest of the season.

 

I was very much anti-fee when it first came out, but over the years have come around somewhat, and knowing what kind of money they have to work with every year and what is needed (as we get briefed at the RAC every year), I have come to support it in most cases.  They can't keep up with the rest of what they need to do with the reduction in people now.  The alternative is a whole lot of gates and locks, which would please the green side to the extent you would not believe.

 

In the end it will be a personal decision for everyone when they talk/write the knotheads in DC, or they get with the agencies and RAC members, either you do or you don't support fees in the area you want to play in.  We are going to have to pay to play in some way, either in a fee that most of it stays in the area, or in higher taxes that Congress may appropriate to the agencies or not.

 

Personally I figure that a group is more than 6 people, but it can vary by area, type of recreation in that area and the agency.

 

This is EXACTLY why GPAA needs a lobbyist or two in Washington and put some actual skin in the game - instead of shoving all the heavy lifting off on the PLP and expect them to work wonders with GPAA's donations. (which they have, BTW.)

I think PLP has a good handle on what needs to be done. That said the money that GPAA donates is better spent with organizations that are non-profits specifically in this field. This type of organization have their whole basis of existence and knowledge involved with legal actions. I would not want to take away from their funding to try to do the same with a private company. I do not know what a good lobbyist in the mining field would cost but a low end rate for a common type of project and average lobbyist for one project would be $100,000 per year. This would not take into account for special diners with congress persons. Looking on the internet I found this quote talking how it is not how it use to be. “Now, you’re lucky if organizing a $5,000-a-plate campaign fundraiser gets you 20 minutes alone with a ranking senator on an energy subcommittee to discuss ways to weaken nationwide renewable fuel standards,” Foraker added. “It’s just not as personal as it used to be.”

The best thing for us would be more volunteers for the legal non profits and if miners would donate when they have it. If it is a 5 dollar bill that is good, just send it to PLP or which ever group you relate to best. There are several out there like PLP. The small amounts add up if it becomes a standard once in a while thing it becomes a big amount on the other end.