| |
Can’t see the Forest for the Fees
—
Commentary by Scotty Philips
"Nothing dollarable is safe, however guarded." –
John Muir, 1910
Readers of this newsletter are, I am sure, familiar with so-called
"forest fees". You can probably remember at least one
outing when paying a fee to park your car at a familiar trailhead
caused both surprise and irritation. Where had the new law come
from, and what was its intended purpose? Was it now impossible to
enter your public Wilderness lands without paying a fee?
The confusion most of us feel is not surprising. Forest Fees are
part of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Fee-Demo), a project
that wriggled its way into law on the back of the Omnibus Appropriations
Act of 1996. Originally intended as a 3-year experiment, Fee-Demo
has been extended three times by similar riders, despite heavy opposition
from the public and many Forest Service employees. Now, the Bush
administration would like to see the program made permanent. At
first glance, the stated purpose of the program, "to demonstrate
the feasibility of user-generated cost recovery for the operation
and maintenance of recreation areas or sites" sounds reasonable.
Proponents of the program uphold Fee-Demo as the savior for the
under-funded Forest Service, which claims that it will not be able
to keep lands open for the public without increased revenue.
Yet a hard look at Fee-Demo reveals a more insidious ambition. Sponsored
by free-market politicians and the American Recreation Coalition,
Fee-Demo is designed to privatize the management of public land.
Profit incentive, not wildland preservation, forms the core of the
legislation. Left to build their budgets through the number of fees
they collect, federal agencies are unlikely to place proper limitations
on visitor use of the Wilderness. Furthermore, much of the collected
money is spent on projects that do nothing to preserve wilderness
character. Instead funds are used to pay the salaries of fee collectors
and to build unwanted and unnecessary facilities in areas set aside
to retain their "primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation…"
For Americans, forest fees impose a secondary tax upon the amount
we already pay for the professional management of our land. It is
the job of Congress, not the American people, to insure that tax
money is allocated to the protection of our nation’s greatest
treasures. In addition, the implementation of fees excludes members
of the public who may not be able to shell out money when parking
their car for a day hike.
Fees are particularly onerous when applied to Wilderness. Wilderness
is supposed to be "untrammeled by man" and the Wilderness
experience itself should be untrammeled by double taxation, commercialization,
and socioeconomic exploitation. Most of us view Wilderness as a
direct antidote to our fast paced life. We want to get away from
work and schedules, from TV and the internet, and from corporate
America.
Unfortunately, as Fee-Demo spreads throughout the country, any escape
will become increasingly difficult to achieve.
Let me offer a concrete example. In the summer of 2001 a friend
obtained a private permit to float the Middle Fork of the Salmon
River in Idaho. Designated as a wild river, the Middle Fork flows
100 miles through the heart of the Frank Church-River of No Return
Wilderness. At the river put-in at Boundary Creek, a private party
necessarily registers with a Forest Service employee. Campsites
are assigned and a leave-no-trace ethic is described before a party
can head off down the river. All seemed normal to us until we learned
that all fees must be paid before the raft hits the water. No fee,
no float.
Our group of 10 coughed up $350 in cash, a disturbing amount for
a number of reasons, including: (1) In order to get a private party
floating permit one must compete in a lottery during the winter
months. Chances of drawing a permit are about one in 30 or 35. By
the time a citizen reaches the river, they have already gone through
a highly competitive process to gain access and; (2) the fact that
fees are levied to float a Wild River flowing through Wilderness
leaves a bad aftertaste. There is something intrinsically and philosophically
very wrong here. After all don’t we, the general public, OWN
the Wild River and the Wilderness in the first place? In the most
affluent society on the planet we should not be double charging
citizens to experience their own Wild Rivers and Wilderness. Why
has the Wild River/Wilderness experience been saddled with this
unnecessary commercialization?
In my view the essence of the Wilderness experience is the chance
for solitude, spontaneity, freedom, personal self-discovery, and
living unfettered for a few days in a "vestige of primitive
America." I believe the framers of the Wilderness Act visualized
this all-important psychological component and understood that the
mental experience of Wilderness is as important as the physical.
Sadly, fees are the antithesis and nemesis of all of the above.
One should not attempt to place a price tag on a Wilderness experience
– it transcends monetary value and constitutes the birth right
of every American. Defeating these fees would be a huge contribution
to preserving the core concept of Wilderness.
Let’s keep the wilderness Wild and Fee-Free!
Opposition to the Fee-Demo program is growing nationwide. The general
public is justifiably frustrated with having to pay a redundant
fee to access their own wildlands. The movement against Fee-Demo
needs your help. Please voice your displeasure with fees by contacting
your congressional representatives and continue to write letters
to the editor and op-ed pieces in your local newspaper. For more
information, contact Scott Silver at Wild Wilderness, ssilver@wildwilderness.org,
www.wildwilderness.org.
Scotty Phillips spent his 25-year career in the U.S. Forest Service
working exclusively in outdoor recreation, including Wilderness
management responsibilities on the Bridger-Teton, Uinta, and Sawtooth
National Forests. Happily retired, Scotty is an active member of
half a dozen environmental organizations.
A
Forum to Remember - Wilderness activists from around the country look
to the past to shape the future of America’s Wilderness
"There
is just one hope of repulsing the tyrannical ambition of civilization
to conquer every niche of the whole earth. That hope is the organization
of spirited people who will fight for the freedom of the wilderness."
— Robert Marshall, 1930
On March 14 – 16th, 2003 in the Blackfoot River Valley in western
Montana an extraordinary and historic event took place – Wilderness
Watch convened thirty of America’s most knowledgeable, passionate,
and committed wilderness stewardship advocates to shape the future
of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Never before during
the nearly 40 years since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act had
a group of citizens organized a Forum to focus on wilderness stewardship
and its role in assuring that the very concept and meaning of Wilderness
remains alive in America for another 40 years and beyond.
From Alaska and West Virginia, from Texas and Oregon, participants
traveled from 13 states to share their wild thoughts. The group
brought together a truly impressive array of wilderness knowledge.
Collectively, circling the table were literally hundreds of years
of first-hand experience with wilderness stewardship and the meaning
and intent of Wilderness as embodied in the Wilderness Act. Participants
included current and former wilderness managers, wilderness rangers,
drafters of national wilderness stewardship policies and regulations,
environmental attorneys, wilderness scholars, representatives of
both national and grassroots conservation groups, and seasoned Wilderness
activists.
The Wilderness Forum focused on the challenges and tensions of preserving
wilderness character while managing for recreational activities
in Wilderness. Faced with an increasing demand for recreation, managing
agencies appear paralyzed, unable to balance their legal obligation
to preserve wilderness character with significant on-the-ground
degradation. The goal of the Wilderness Forum was to produce a clear
articulation within the Wilderness community of the threats posed
by recreation, to recommit to preserving wilderness character, and
to brainstorm possible solutions to ensure that our enduring resource
of Wilderness will exist for future generations.
Rediscovering Wilderness Character
"…each agency administering any area designated as wilderness
shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of
the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes
of which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness
character." [emphasis added]
— Section 4(b), Wilderness Act of 1964
Pursuant to the Wilderness Act, managing agencies must administer
allowable uses, such as recreation, with the over-arching obligation
to preserve a designated area’s wilderness character. Though
the Wilderness Act repeatedly mentions wilderness character, the
term is never strictly defined.
In recognition of the importance of wilderness character, the forum
began with a brainstorm session to identify the key elements of
the term. Roger Kaye, a Wilderness specialist at the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, urged those present to recognize that wilderness
character is comprised of two equally important components: physical,
or tangible properties; and intangible, spiritual properties. In
identifying these properties, he stressed the importance of examining
the purpose and intent of Wilderness Act visionaries, such as Howard
Zahniser, Bob Marshall, and Aldo Leopold.
Recently, a proposed description of wilderness character was published
by the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). The document states that
wilderness character, "like personal character, is an unseen
presence that transcends the physical entity in which it is rooted.
It is the essential being of a place dedicated to expanding our
perspective." As a statutory term, wilderness character seeks
"legislative recognition of the existence and significance
of an essence – a way of understanding, feeling, and relating
– evoked by lands set apart, ‘where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man.’ "
The participants addressed tangible aspects of wilderness character,
including Wilderness as critical wildlife habitat, as unmotorized
and unmanipulated land for primitive recreation free from permanent
structures or roads. In addition to these more definable elements
of wilderness character, many intangible aspects, such as freedom,
risk, solitude, humility, exploration, restraint, immediacy, respect,
and introspection were voiced. It was generally agreed that advocates
must champion the intangible aspects of wilderness character as
well as the more readily accepted "scientific" and tangible
aspects.
Loving Wilderness to death
From our discussion of wilderness character, the forum focused on
identifying threats to Wilderness posed by recreation. The list
was disturbingly long, including over-crowding, motorized use, commercialization,
the proliferation of trails and visitor facilities, habituated and
displaced wildlife, under-regulated outfitting and guiding, noise,
invasive weeds, and the subsequent loss of solitude, wildness, self-reliance,
and opportunities for discovery. Sadly, our burgeoning population
and the constant influx of new "essential" technology
promises that these threats will increase in the years to come unless
positive steps are taken to combat degradation. This responsibility
lies not only with the managing agencies but also with Wilderness
visitors, who need to understand the complex nature of wilderness
character and adopt an ethic of restraint and humility to ensure
its preservation.
From these threats, the forum’s focus shifted to identifying
possible opportunities and solutions. We spoke of the need to educate
and activate the general public, spiritual groups, Congress, managing
agencies, and conservation organizations. Committees were formed
to undertake these outreach efforts, aimed at urging people to understand
the myriad values of Wilderness and the code of ethics required
for its preservation. Each member of the forum returned home –
whether it be to Alaska, West Virginia, Illinois, Colorado, Idaho,
or California – with a set of tasks and, we hope, with a renewed
sense of purpose and belonging.
In the News – Wilderness Watch challenged for standing up for
Wilderness
At
first glance, our mission appears straightforward – to ensure
the preservation and responsible stewardship of those lands and rivers
in the National Wilderness Preservation System and National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. People unfamiliar with Wilderness Watch might
infer from our mission statement that we have little work to do, as
designated Wilderness is already protected by law. Unfortunately,
a barrage of threats, including the use of motorized vehicles and
equipment, irresponsible commercial use, rampant mismanagement by
federal agencies, and over-use, threaten to undercut the very concept
of Wilderness.
In 1989, the founders of Wilderness Watch worried that while a great
deal of energy was being focused on the designation of new Wilderness,
little was being done to protect lands once they were designated.
Decades of scientific research reveal that System-wide, our Wildernesses
are less wild and more degraded than they were even twenty years ago.
The founders understood that while the process of protecting our last
wild lands necessarily begins with designation, the subsequent work
of preserving Wilderness forms an ongoing, and often controversial,
campaign.
The controversy associated with Wilderness stewardship is clearly
illustrated by two recent articles: one in Audubon Magazine (Oct.–Dec.
2002), and the other in High Country News (3/3/03). In Audubon Magazine,
Ted Williams’ article, Trout Are Wildlife, Too, criticized Wilderness
Watch for opposing a massive trout poisoning and restocking program
using helicopters and motorboats on twelve lakes in Montana’s
Bob Marshall and Great Bear Wildernesses. The article suggests that
Wilderness Watch cares little for westslope cutthroat trout, a statement
that could not be further from the truth.
Had Mr. Williams contacted Wilderness Watch before he wrote his article,
he may have gained insight into our concerns with the trout poisoning
and restocking program. The Wilderness lakes in question were naturally
fishless, though they had been stocked with various trout species
over the years at the behest of sport fishermen. Using motorboats
and helicopters, the project aims to dump 15,360 gallons of rotenone
poison into the lakes, killing not only the introduced fish, but also
many of the native aquatic biota that live in the lakes. Despite this
fact, Mr. Williams has little patience for people he calls "chemophobes",
stating that rotenone has "not been seen to harm or even affect
a human." Unfortunately, he cannot extend this exception to the
myriad other forms of life living in, and dependent on, these twelve
Wilderness lakes.
The intentional manipulation of fish stocking illustrates some of
the threats facing our designated Wilderness. The Wilderness Act defines
Wilderness in part as an area "where the earth and its community
of life are untrammeled by man . . . managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions." The Act requires Wilderness managers to
preserve an area’s "wilderness character". In the present
situation, if the twelve lakes are "cleansed" with rotenone,
they should be left in their original, fishless state. Though westslope
cutthroat trout are native to Montana, they are not native to any
of these lakes, and their introduction perpetuates a harmful and unnecessary
policy of manipulation at the expense of the aquatic ecosystem. While
the importance of restoring westslope cutthroat trout to their native
habitat can not be underestimated, it does not excuse the use of motorboats
and helicopters to poison and restock naturally fishless Wilderness
lakes – actions that violate the spirit and intent of the Wilderness
Act.
An article appearing in High Country News likewise challenged Wilderness
Watch for opposing inappropriate actions in Wilderness. Entitled "The
Wild Card" the article criticized Wilderness Watch for standing
up for what the author termed as a "purist ideal", namely
the belief that Wilderness should be managed according to the dictates
of the Wilderness Act. The so-called purist ideal is viewed as threatening
by some conservationists, who believe that designating new Wilderness
can only be achieved by lessening the standards championed by the
Wilderness Act and ignoring improper activities in existing Wilderness.
Many new Wilderness bills, some still on the drafting table, include
provisions that allow for routine motorized use, the installation
of electronic repeater sites, the construction of water tanks to artificially
augment game populations, and the proliferation of trails. While Wilderness
Watch strongly supports efforts to designate more Wilderness, it does
not support special provisions that threaten the unique character
and qualities of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The article erroneously claimed that Wilderness Watch works to undo
special provisions "grandfathered" by Congress into wilderness
legislation. In truth, Wilderness Watch has never worked to change
the special exceptions allowed by the Wilderness Act. Instead, we
focus on challenging numerous illegal activities and construction
projects in Wilderness nationwide. For example, the article stated
that "Wilderness Watch fights to remove cabins … grandfathered
into wilderness areas around the west." We did fight to remove
three lodges illegally built along the Wild Salmon River in Idaho’s
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. We argued that the lodges
were not "grandfathered" in legislation, and a federal court
agreed.
The general thesis of The Wild Card holds that modern times call for
a modern, and more watered down, standard for Wilderness. Statements
such as "As the Wilderness Act nears its 40th anniversary, protecting
wild lands requires a new kind of deal-making" and "You
can’t win big without some wheeling and dealing" illustrate
the belief that Americans must embrace an increasingly degraded standard
for Wilderness. In contrast, Wilderness Watch believes that this approach
is unacceptable and ultimately defeatist. It is quite possible to
pass Wilderness bills without sacrificing the area’s quality,
as illustrated by the recent bills establishing the James Peak Wilderness
(CO), the Black Rock Desert Wilderness (NV), and the Dugger Mountain
Wilderness (AL). Somehow, even without "wheeling and dealing",
these three bills found a way to designate Wilderness without gambling
away its wild character.
Why does it matter whether a few Wilderness areas have reduced standards,
parts of their wilderness character sacrificed to gain designation?
Wilderness Watch would answer that the National Wilderness Preservation
System contains the last remnants of America’s wild heritage,
lands that embody vestiges of fading habitats, refuges for threatened
and endangered species, and reminders of our collective past. The
authors of the Wilderness Act intended the statutory designation of
Wilderness to embody the highest standard for land conservation and
stewardship available in the Unites States. Efforts to chip away at
these standards degrades the system as a whole, and paves the way
for increasingly compromised Wilderness bills. Inevitably, these hybridized
bills strike at the public’s perception of Wilderness, urging
us as a whole to discard our expectations of "an area untrammeled
by man" in exchange for a modified landscape more in tune with
our busy national parks. This concern is expressed eloquently by Michael
Frome, author of The Battle for Wilderness:
"How much wilderness does it take to fulfill the needs of civilization?
That really isn't the key question. What counts more is whether each
succeeding generation must settle for an increasingly degraded world
and know the experience of the past from books and pictures only.
Must the future be satisfied with mediocrity because nothing better
will be known?"
Wilderness Watch does not agree that the lessening of Wilderness standards
is either necessary or inevitable, and will continue its work to uphold
the integrity of one of our nation’s greatest attributes –
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
|
