House bill would allow fees for all public land access

[Hotspring 44]

I posted this in Political Action alerts because it needs urgent attention so I think if you don't want all federal lands to have the ever so hated “Iron Rangers” (https://www.ironrangers.org/) (but it could be far worse than that, it could be like international border crossings in some places!) you will be outraged at what could happen to the whole national (our public land) land access if the HR 5204 gets covertly slipped into law via it being attached as an appropriations rider or in some other devious way be enacted into law.

It is my contention that it is a part of a larger scheme and is just another assault on the majority of us using access to the publicly owned land in the guise of the “were broke” mantra that the tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for the rest of us proponents are strategically placing to, as a continuation, manipulate people into believing that that way is the ONLY way, It, IMHO, is really all about conditioning us into being tricked into allowing privatization of our National Forests, BLM, and all other Federally owned large tracts of land.

FWIW, I already wrote (via email) Congressman Jared Huffman (https://huffman.house.gov/contact/email-me) urging him to vote against it and to be aware that it could be covertly slipped into an appropriations rider in a way that is detailed in the following text I found on Western Slope No-Fee Coalition (https://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php).

FWIW, I will also write to my other reps soon.

The following (in the quote box) is from: https://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php?display=yes&pageid=34


HOUSE BILL WOULD ALLOW FEES FOR ALL PUBLIC LAND ACCESS (https://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php?display=yes&pageid=34)

HR 5204, if enacted, could destroy the concept of public lands as places where everyone has access and is welcome. Every place, every activity, every person, could be required to pay a fee—an additional tax on top of the taxes that already support public lands—for access, regardless whether they are highly developed like National Parks and Forest Service or BLM campgrounds, or completely undeveloped like Wilderness Areas.

HR 5204 would allow the kind of fees that have not been controversial to continue, such as fees for developed campgrounds and National Park entrance fees. But in addition to those fees, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters. It would accomplish this by two types of fee: Day Use Fees and Permit Fees.

The only meaningful requirement for a Day Use Fee would be that where you park there is a toilet of some kind (could be a porta-potty or a stinky outhouse) within 1/2 mile.

The only meaningful requirement for a Permit Fee would be that where you park gives access to a “special area.” Neither “special” nor “area” is defined, so the land agencies would have complete discretion to claim that any place at all is a “special area.”...

Continue reading here (https://westernslopenofee.org/index2.php?display=yes&pageid=34)

Other useful links from westernslopenofee.org:

HR 5204 Bill Text (https://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/HR5204_Bishop.pdf)
The text of HR 5204, The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014.

HR 5204 Bill Whats In It (https://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/HR5204_WhatsInIt.pdf)
HR 5204 is written as additions, deletions, and amendments to existing law, making it hard to follow. Here is what it actually says would happen.

[podfish]

It is my contention that it is a part of a larger scheme and is just another assault on the majority of us using access to the publicly owned land in the guise of the “we're broke” mantra that the tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for the rest of us.yep, and they play on people's selfishness to get this through. We're constantly pushed a story that we're paying other peoples' costs; usually it's implied that they don't deserve it, but that's not really essential for the message to get through anyway. "They" are attempting to make us suspicious of spending for the public good, and creating a mythos that such spending is and has been rather un-American (which is historically false). This new ethic benefits those who have money and control, but they've been successful at making even poor people uncomfortable with the idea of taxation no-matter who pays it. Once someone has the ability to sit on the flow of money, somehow it's presumed that they've earned every penny that passes through them and it's a shame they have to return some of it to the society as taxes. So the 'job creators' who own a retail business, say, therefore have primary right to all profits of it and the workers have become costs rather than partners. They haven't 'earned' any share of the profits by rights of their daily contributions; instead, they're just rather expensive components that should be acquired as cheaply as possible.


Wow, got off-topic... but I'm sincere that the real problem is that as a society we don't want to make as many resources as widely available as possible any more. We call it 'efficiency' when we can push direct costs to those who directly benefit and it's become the default way to operate. Because we're trying to treat wealth as something created by a few individuals rather than something that's created by all of us, there ain't enough wealth available for public spending -- thus the ever tightening screws.