User Fee Survey Results and Opportunities

In January, AW posted an online survey focused on federal recreation user fees. In two weeks we received roughly 350 surveys, many of which included very thoughtful comments.

One recurring theme throughout the surveys was paddlers’ desire to first and foremost see public rivers and lands managed responsibly.  Specifically, many people noted that resource protection is extremely important to them, and that they appreciate modest recreational infrastructure (ie toilets, parking, trails) that supports recreational enjoyment while protecting the environment.  

While preferring other funding sources, most paddlers are not against all user fees: 75% somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement “There are some fees I don't mind paying and some that really bother me.”  A quarter to a third of respondents generally answered “it depends” when asked whether or not an agency should be able to charge fees for various activities.  For these people, based on their comments, it primarily depended on the amenities offered, the price of the fee, how and where the fees are used, as well as level and type of use.  More people thought the Park Service should be able to collect fees than other agencies.     

A majority of paddlers felt that fees should not be charged for entrance to federal lands or for non-consumptive relatively low-impact activities (hiking, paddling, skiing, climbing, backcountry camping, and mountain biking).  A smaller majority felt it was acceptable to charge fees for hunting, car camping, horseback riding, off-road vehicle use, and guided recreation.  Many comments linked the environmental impact and management/facility costs with the acceptability of user fees.

Big picture, 92% of respondents felt that recreational management should be adequately funded by congress, 74% felt fees charged to extractive industries should be used, 60% felt philanthropic giving should be used, and 45% felt onsite user fees should be used.  There was far less support for corporate management or taxes on gear.  It is likely that the 45% support of user fees reflects beliefs expressed throughout the survey that at least some fees are generally acceptable for National Parks and highly developed recreation sites like campgrounds.  As it turns out, several of these very issues are all being dealt with in current legislation and funding opportunities, which AW is working on.   

Federal Funding For Agencies - In 2007, American Whitewater and our partners in the Outdoor Alliance worked to educate Congressional representatives and staff on the need to increase the recreation budgets for the federal land management agencies.  We supported proposed budget increases for the park service, dedicated funding for BLM’s National Land Conservation System, and we developed budget recommendations for the Forest Service that would increase their recreation program’s budget by 8% rather than decreasing it by 11%.  Ultimately, these efforts were successful, and the 2008 budget for the agencies mark a turn around from inadequate budgets.  This was especially important for the Forest Service, which has suffered through abysmal budgets for the past few years.  Preliminary 2009 Budget requests for the USFS are once again low.  We feel that healthy and well-funded agencies can better protect the places and experiences that are important to our members.  We will continue to advocate for solid agency budgets – and also solid agency policies for managing their lands. 

Extractive Resource Fees – The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, passed by the House and now being considered by the Senate, would finally update the 1872 mining act.  The new law would allow managers to balance mining interests with other interests like recreation, instead of always giving mining top priority.  It would also allow collection of royalties from companies that are removing minerals from public lands.  The funds would then be used for resource protection and restoration.  Outdoor Alliance (including AW) is strongly supporting the new legislation because it would have sweeping recreational and environmental benefits.  You will hear more from us on this opportunity.    

Recreational User Fees -  U.S. Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) have introduced S. 2438, the Fee Repeal and Expanded Access Act of 2007.  This bill would repeal the controversial Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) or as called by opponents, the Recreation Access Tax (RAT), which grants agencies broad discretion to charge fees for recreational use.  The new legislation would allow the Park Service to continue charging entrance fees (capped at $25).  However it would restrict other agencies’ ability to charge recreation fees except at developed campgrounds and other highly developed recreational facilities. Gone would be fees for entering Forest Service lands and undeveloped river access areas, trailheads, and backcountry camp sites. 

In short, S.2438 closely matches the interests that a large majority of paddlers expressed in our survey.  The bill will also go through hearings and be open to public debate, in sharp contrast to both Fee Demo and FLREA which were passed as riders on other bills.  In concert with limiting fees, Senator Baucus has publicly stated he is dedicated to ensuring adequate congressional funding for the agencies.  American Whitewater encourages paddlers to let your voices be heard on this piece of legislation, and we'll post opportunities for public comment as they arise.  We intend to formally support the legislation as an organization because we feel it is highly consistent with the vast majority of our membership’s interests and our mission.  We consider this position appropriate in the context of the rest of our work aimed at fostering well-funded agencies that do a great job of managing our federal lands and rivers.   

THANK YOU – to all the people who took the fee survey!