Welcome to the UNofficial website of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service - an agency in search of a mission.

Fee Programs

Hated forest fee still in force

Mail Tribune
By PAUL FATTIG

Scott Morrell is a law-abiding citizen. He doesn't cheat on his taxes. You won't even catch him jaywalking. But that philosophy is being sorely tested by the Forest Service's Northwest Forest Pass.

"We feel it is an infringement on our rights to enjoy public land," said the avid hiker who lives in Medford. "We all pay taxes on April 15 already."

The pass, which costs $5 per day or $30 per year, is required to park vehicles at many trailheads and other sites on the Rogue River and Siskiyou national forests.

And it's not going away anytime soon.

Forest Service officials, noting that funds raised from the program are enabling the cash-strapped agency to maintain recreation areas that would otherwise be closed, say they will continue the program as directed by Congress.

Instituted by Congress in 1996 as the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project, it allows the Forest Service to collect fees to help support facilities used by recreational users. The test program was extended to September 2002 last year.

But Morrell, a member of Free Our Forests - Rogue Valley, a group opposing the program, hopes to see it stopped in its congressional tracks before it becomes permanent.

"We have no problem with paying fees for picnics and campgrounds," said Morrell, an employee at Southern Oregon University. "But the pass is often needed for undeveloped lands. They are trying to make us pay for just taking a hike."

Earlier this month, Josephine County commissioners unanimously passed a resolution opposing the program. State Rep. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, has also recently introduced a bill opposing it.

"Oregonians should not be taxed in the form of a fee to use their own national forests," Knopp said. "... Public lands belong to all citizens, not just those who can afford it."

He cited a study in the Journal of Leisure Research that concluded the fee discriminates against the poor.

The state legislatures of California and New Hampshire already have come out against such fees, Morrell said.

"We're hoping many such resolutions will be passed," he said, although noting the state legislative bodies carry no clout in Washington, D.C.

"But it is a symbolic gesture, a way of telling Congress that people are opposed to it," he added. "We plan to tweak Congress."

Opposition crosses political ideologies and traditional boundaries, he said.

"The city of Berkeley (California) and Josephine County have both passed resolutions against it," he said, illustrating that the opposition is broad-based.

Those opposed to the passes need to take their argument to Congress, said Rex Holloway, a spokesman for the Forest Service's Region 6 headquarters in Portland.

"There is a philosophical debate that goes with this, and that debate needs to be decided by Congress," Holloway said. "We've decided that if we are going to have these fees, then we will try to develop a system that is as convenient, as easy to understand, as user-friendly and as fair as possible."

The pass is generally required where maintenance is needed, such as picnic areas, day-use sites, trailheads and boat launches, he said.

"We're making (the pass) simpler and easier to get hold of," he said. "What we've heard from focus groups and comment cards is that people are willing to pay the fee if money goes back to pay for the facility it came from.

"Our focus this year is to try to get the word out," he added. "People really get frustrated if they find out about a fee when they go out there."

No-fee sites do and will continue to exist on national forests, he stressed.

"Anybody can take a drive in a national forest without paying a fee," he said. "There are still a lot of opportunities for those who prefer to not pay a fee."

But Morrell believes that agency has taken the program too far.

"They are now charging you for parking on the side of a hill and going for a hike," he said. "Trails have existed here for hundreds of years. We shouldn't have to pay additional taxes for continued access to those undeveloped areas."

In Southern California, a special pass is required to enter national forests, he said.

"It's the camel's nose under the tent," he said. "I'm concerned with liberty and access. Going out into nature is not a commercial transaction I should have to purchase from the government."