The current fee law contains a section authorizing permit fees. The section consists of a single, grammatically-challenged, sentence. It reads in its entirety:


This authority is used as a catchall for any place or activity the agencies want to charge a fee for that does not fit into the other two categories. For example, FS and BLM charge a fee for entry to numerous designated Wilderness areas, for the decidedly un-"special use" of going for a hike or a horseback ride. Because the law prohibits them from charging entrance fees, they call these fees Special Recreation Permit fees. The fees charged at OHV areas like Imperial Sand Dunes and Little Sahara are also called Special Recreation Permit Fees, even though they too are implemented on the ground as entrance fees.

What kind of activities or areas should require a permit and when should a fee be charged for permits? How do we guard against permit fees being used to limit access to those willing/able to pay?

Very simple, it is public land that is already funded through our taxes. Permits are fine, but they must be free

The problem is that the tax money going to the FS, the BLM, and the NPS is simply not enough. It is appalling that so much of the funding must go to garbage cleanup and removal from heavily used areas. According to a Sierra Magazin article, "the U.S. Forest Service and its volunteers haul out 400 32-gallon trash bags a day, 150 tons of garbage a year." [http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201005/angeles.aspx] Not to mention vandalism of public facilities and even natural features. Some readers may not believe the article, discrediting the Sierra Club as a group of "eco-nuts", but believe me, on my hiking/backpacking/kayaking trips I often walk out with bags full of garbage and feel bad that I could only pick up a small fraction of what was there. The trash is out there. People go about destroying these majestic areas at such a rate that if the additional funding was not present to offset the cost of cleanup, we might as well go hiking, camping, fishing, etc. at our local garbage dumps.

Either we need to increase tax funding to land management agencies (unlikely to happen since our government and citizens seemingly would rather spend billions on bombing other countries than a few million to TRULY protect OUR nation), or continue charging entry fees at heavily utilized areas and maintain "special recreation permit fees" for activities which have an increased impact on the environment.

If you don't want to pay recreation fees then just remember, "leave no trace". In Boy Scouts they always taught us to leave our areas cleaner than we found them. I just wish more individuals would subscribe to that philosophy.

I agree that the Districts are not getting as much money as they should, but the problem is not that Congress is not sending it their way. In fact overall appropriations to the Forest Service are up more than 70% over the past decade. The problem is that only about 20 cents of each dollar ever makes it to the ground. The other 80 cents gets siphoned off first by the Washington Office, then by the Region, then by the Supervisor, and the poor District Ranger is expected to scrape along on what crumbs are left and make up any shortfall by charging fees.

As to trash, just imagine how much the situation would improve if they wrote as many tickets for littering as they do for failure to pay a recreational fee!

I fully agree that the extent of bureaucracy is quite outrageous. The distribution, at worst, should be the other way around, with 80 cents on the dollar going to the park itself.

As for the littering tickets, I agree. In California, the littering fee is at a minimum one thousand dollars, enough to cover a couple hundred entrance fees. If the littering fees were actually enforced, I think more and more individuals would stop littering, making for cleaner areas and decreased operating costs.

Of course, entrance fees are much easier to enforce. Just send someone around to check the permits sitting on dashboards. Enforcing littering laws would require extra rangers to observe high-use areas. The problem is that so much thinking is focused on short term cost, and not long term benefit. Sure you may spend fifty thousand dollars on another ranger, but all she has to do is write 50 littering tickets, which in a place like Angeles National Forest would probably not be that hard.

Do I hear some business-like discussions here - refreshing!


Assuming that the lion's share of annual appropriations is not reaching RDs, I need to know that is not a reason or excuse to repeal FLREA. Talking about the latter in this topic is out of place - just wanted to make the statement for the record.