Sponsored
Links |
|
Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18
Quotes: 43 Facts: 11
Articles: 53 Videos: 21
Images: 0 Comments: 0
|
An article in the March 7th New York Times discusses the Forest Service's increase in forest and wilderness user fees for anything from parking to just walking in wilderness areas or trails. For example, along a 14-mile stretch of state highway near Denver that borders the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and tops out on Mount Evans, if people stop their car to take a picture of a mountain goat, rangers can force them to pay a $10 fee. Nothing is free anymore.
|
Cin
Dallas, TX
Posts: 2
|
WHAT?!  Along a state highway, already paid for by the people's taxes, they have to pay an additional $10 for a stop? What happens if they break down? Is that their example? I can understand fees within a park but along a highway?! You've got to be kidding me. Sounds like they should have return the state their money and turned it into a toll road.
|
Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18
Quotes: 43 Facts: 11
Articles: 53 Videos: 21
Images: 0 Comments: 0
|
According to Rep Peter DeFazio writing on this USDA website: '"the Forest Service has a national maintenance backlog for its recreational facilities and trails of about $1 billion. The new user fees the agency collected last year would cover only .06 percent of that backlog. At that rate it will take about 1,600 years to catch up". De Fazio goes on to state that "the recreational fee program violates the principle that our national forests belong to the people of this nation and should be accessible to them. It is also fueling a deep resentment of our land management agencies and of Congress. It should be repealed" . In it's place he favors "a 5 percent royalty on gold and other valuable minerals that mining companies now extract from our public lands for free". |