Secretary of Interior Calls Outrage over Lands Fee Increase "Baloney"

[Bushcraft]

Just another transition from a general fund item to pay to play.  Way, way too much stuff out there to fund through use fees.  The model this country was founded on was that you could go out and hunt, fish, hike, camp or whatever your desire for a low cost.  The majority of the cost was picked up through taxes spread across everyone.  Public land, public funding.

If we continue down this path, it will be an upper middle class to wealthy activity to hunt, fish or camp on public land.

Therein lies the problem: The public cost is not being picked up through taxes being spread across everyone. Per your last paragraph, the upper middle class and especially the wealthy pay the vast majority of the bill.

And what path are you referring to specifically? The $70 per week for a whole carload of people during the popular surge times of the year?  I submit that if people can’t afford that amount in the entertainment portion of their budget, then they have something seriously out of whack in their personal and/or financial priorities.

[Special T]

One of the general trends in leasure time activies is more focused attention to just a few activities. To the dedicated you can raise the price to a fairly high level and not loose very many sales. It does become a disincentive to try something new, when the cost rises.

The days of huge quantities of people dabbling in all manner of pursuits in thier free time has greatly diminished. I don't think $70 for a weeks trip though a NP is a big deal. But for the occasional user or person whom may just visit for one day it may deter enough people to actually make it a net loss for the agency. 
Knowing the customer isn't a strength of  government. Make no mistake that this solution stems from a problem, not an intimate understanding of those whom must voluntarily give up thier cash.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Stein]

Just another transition from a general fund item to pay to play.  Way, way too much stuff out there to fund through use fees.  The model this country was founded on was that you could go out and hunt, fish, hike, camp or whatever your desire for a low cost.  The majority of the cost was picked up through taxes spread across everyone.  Public land, public funding.

If we continue down this path, it will be an upper middle class to wealthy activity to hunt, fish or camp on public land.

Therein lies the problem: The public cost is not being picked up through taxes being spread across everyone. Per your last paragraph, the upper middle class and especially the wealthy pay the vast majority of the bill.

And what path are you referring to specifically? The $70 per week for a whole carload of people during the popular surge times of the year?  I submit that if people can’t afford that amount in the entertainment portion of their budget, then they have something seriously out of whack in their personal and/or financial priorities.

It's pretty straight forward, the budget is getting pinched both at the state and federal level.  The big price increases they are talking about will still take over 100 years to clear the backlog of maintenance projects that need funding.  Budgets get reduced and they are forced to move to user fees.  It happens with land, WDFW, parks and pretty much everywhere.

If they collected all the money they needed to maintain the roads and trails strictly through user fees it would be more than most could afford.

[Bushcraft]

And yet, the last time I checked, the public land boundaries (and the contents therein including fish and wildlife and other renewable resources like timber) haven’t grown in any substantive way, shape or form that would legitimize the ridiculous growth in the overhead cost (waste?) attributable to their management.

Contrast that with private lands.