Ajax2744
Well-known member
I definitely support fully funding the lwcf. $900 million could help pick up some slack on maintenance on public land projects.
An idea to make public lands more profitable
- Thread starter MNElkNut
- Start date
Gut Shot
Well-known member
The BLM's annual budget is 1.1 billion dollars. My taxes pay for that budget. Now you want me to pay more taxes to actually use the land that I already pay for? And how much should I pay? $5 per night? Why not $10? Hell lets make it $50.
Don't pretend that this would somehow support and enhance public land. There would be politicians and bureaucrats involved, ensuring that the money would be pissed away on pet projects and junk science. The BLM would still be short on money and the same problems would exist.
Schaaf
Well-known member
I haven’t seen the pay with memories option on my bills. Until then, my checkbook disagrees that I am profiting from them.
I wouldn’t be opposed to some type of yearly pass. I think if we were interested in public land being more economical the logical first step would be to address the AUM rates and I’m not sure that’s the best route either.
Greyman
Well-known member
The old saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune". Right now, hunters and fishermen pay the lion's share of money going towards conservation in licencing, tags, and fees. As a result, we have more say in how things are run. If non-hunters/fishermen want to pony more money up on their own, no problem. If we make them pay, they will naturally have more say, and rightfully so. I like being the one that gets to call the tune.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You seem to be referring to wildlife management and conservation ... not management and conservation of public lands, which is a much broader and more complex system of fiscal support, not necessarily with hunters and fishermen mostly footing the bill.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
This is the last thing I would want. This would allow people back east to avoid paying into the system, and I'm sorry, but those people ARE getting tangible benefits from just the idea of those lands, what they represent themselves, and how they support the foundational American idea, FREEDOM.
I'm 100% socialist in this regard, we should all be paying equally through taxes for the management of public lands. Even if it's not income tax it needs to be a national tax of some kind without exemptions.
Schaaf
Well-known member
I get what you’re saying, but what are those people paying right now?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Theoretically a portion of their income tax...
So the original idea was for overnight camping. The annual user fee is another idea worth exploring.
For those that say they don't want to pay a few bucks to use public land...see Greyman's comment of "He who pays the piper calls the tune". I bet you are rolling up in fancy trucks, shooting nice guns, decked out in KUIU or Sitka and/or paying (if a NR) hundreds in licensing fees. But the thought of paying $5-10 per night to camp is an undo burden? (Cue the guy who hunts in his jeans after walking to the mountain and using his great-grandpa's 30/30....)!
And the concept of you don't want to pay cuz you own the land....do you pay to go to a National Park? You own that too.
These ideas are about being proactive, taking away a talking point from the opposition, and possibly providing some funding for public lands. I am not as big of a cynic as some that would suggest that all if it will be wasted in bureaucracy. Maybe I am being overly optimistic on that!
Nobody wants to pay more. But what if we did? What could we do with the political capital and money generated by something like this?
For those that say they don't want to pay a few bucks to use public land...see Greyman's comment of "He who pays the piper calls the tune". I bet you are rolling up in fancy trucks, shooting nice guns, decked out in KUIU or Sitka and/or paying (if a NR) hundreds in licensing fees. But the thought of paying $5-10 per night to camp is an undo burden? (Cue the guy who hunts in his jeans after walking to the mountain and using his great-grandpa's 30/30....)!
And the concept of you don't want to pay cuz you own the land....do you pay to go to a National Park? You own that too.
These ideas are about being proactive, taking away a talking point from the opposition, and possibly providing some funding for public lands. I am not as big of a cynic as some that would suggest that all if it will be wasted in bureaucracy. Maybe I am being overly optimistic on that!
Nobody wants to pay more. But what if we did? What could we do with the political capital and money generated by something like this?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Again, a ton of camp grounds on public lands are fee based already. It would be impossible to charge a per night fee on all BLM and USFS camping, typically National Parks are discrete areas with entrances.
It’s not so much a I don’t want to pay issue it’s that’s literally impossible to enforce or manage issue.
FI460
Well-known member
I worry that it would be received in the opposite way from what you're expecting. I can see the Mike Lee's of the world spinning this as just another burden put on the hardworking citizenry that must be paid to access the king's land.
I'm certain that's how many people around here would view it.
Exactly. I wonder how many Backcountry Rangers would have to be employed to enforce that? USFS land is already grossly underpatrolled by existing enforcement. Example; one USFS LE Ranger for the entirety of the Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest East of the continental divide. That's a massive tract of land for one Officer. Thats why local Sheriffs Office end up responding to 90% of USFS issues within their own counties around the West.
One thing I will say, there is usually less garbage and destruction left behind in places that require payment. . .again "usually."
R
rwc101
Guest
Nope.
A lot of us are closer to the guy in jeans than the guy in KUIU or Sitka. It doesn't really matter though because but you dismiss both.
National Parks serve vastly different purposes and provide different services and amenities unlike most USFS and BLM land.
Like others have said, it's impossible to enforce. I want more ranger and wardens to effectively control the littering, poaching, and illegal off-roading we already have instead of issuing tickets for not paying to use public lands. We'd never pay enough not to be painted as takers from the PLT folks anyways.
There would be no money generated. It would cost money to try to control overnight use with fees and the man power to attempt to enforce it.
Bighorn Canyon NRA, as one small example, recently eliminated fees because administering them cost more than it brought in. And it’s a relatively small area with a controlled access point.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Popular local National Forest recreation area at Como Lake requires a use pass in the summer months.
Helps covering the cost of maintaining the facilities. Reasonable to me.
Bitterroot National Forest - Passes & Permits
Bitterroot National Forest - Passes & Permits
www.fs.usda.gov
Helps covering the cost of maintaining the facilities. Reasonable to me.
Goatshoes
Active member
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 456
I can agree with paying a user fee, but then please give me back all the general taxes I pay that are supposed to be covering these expenses. And lets apply it evenly across the board.
Meh, not really. You would never do this with the expectation of 100% compliance. It isn't a true resource issue either, so if compliance is only 50-60%, no big deal.
Agreed, presumptions and assumptions like that really tend to delegitimize an argument. Who give a rip? It's irrelevant.
This isn't necessarily true for wildlife management, which is what he referenced. I would hope it's not necessarily true for public lands management either, because the Wilks Brothers can buy things out in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourself into thinking we can come up with enough money to be top dog, and it shouldn't matter anyway. Lands and wildlife shouldn't be for sale to high bidder.
Agreed.
I would absolutely embrace this IF the funds were earmarked specifically for on the ground projects, such as trail maintenance, noxious weed control, riparian rehab, etc. I don't think $30 per vehicle, per year is in any way unreasonable.
Is someone going to pick me up in a POS Suburban and feed me a sack lunch, and offer to let me shoot a management buck?
Federal lands are not required to manage for profitability, they are required to manage for multiple use. I doubt you could raise enough money to sway a single opinion from the PLT crowd, but I certainly could be wrong.
Correct. Implementing a yearly use fee would likely require eliminating at least some of these in the essence of simplicity.
I'm guessing if you got back the portion of your federal income taxes that actually went to public land management, it would cover maybe one good night at the bar.
antlerradar
Well-known member
For a hunting lease here on private land in good old SE Montana. Some leases go for less and some for a lot more but I would say that the 100 to 200 dollars a day will cover the average
I have no idea if it is profitable, but Canada is doing it. I think you do it online. Not a lot of bureaucracy in an online system (unless you have the Minnesota Licensing division do it!). And couldn't the fees generated be used to hire additional enforcement? A game warden would have the ability to enforce it easily. You either have the permit or you don't. I am baffled by those that say it is unenforceable. The Boundary Waters and every back country national park campsite is another example of it working. Are they unenforceable too?
Man, what a bunch of Negative Nellies. Go ahead and throw every rock you can at the idea but don't come up with any of your own.
Man, what a bunch of Negative Nellies. Go ahead and throw every rock you can at the idea but don't come up with any of your own.
