< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1993 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >


Unintended consequences of public land fees

Published 28-Mar-1993 in the Denver Post
Copyright ©1993 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

Most towns in the West began as centers for exploiting public lands. The nimble towns manage, not by halting the exploitation, but by changing the means -- Aspen from silver to skiing, or Moab from uranium to mountain bikes.

The West is a vast commons that underwent several waves of exploitation. Each earlier wave -- mining, farming, grazing, logging -- followed a pattern. Places boomed while folks grabbed the cheap and easy stuff, generally with the help of government subsidy (Sherman Silver Purchase Act, etc.) But at some point, Washington proposes to make exploitation more expensive.

Now it is recreation's turn. A Leadville could once boom by selling powder, whiskey and sex to miners who used the public lands at minimal charge; a Moab or Salida can survive now by serving cyclists and floaters who use public lands at minimal charge. Thus the recent administration trial balloon: user fees for recreation on public lands.

Recreation is not exactly struggling. At $257 billion in 1990, recreation is bigger than logging ($32 billion), mining ($80 billion), and cattle and sheep ($61 billion), all put together.

Outdoor recreation is heavily subsidized. Fees cover only 7 percent of the cost of national parks; a day at Disneyland costs $35 per head, while a week at Yellowstone is only $10 per carload.

From a national perspective, it does seem fair to bring public-land recreation fees up to market rates. But problems will come because people get demanding after they're forced to spend real money.

It's one thing to miss Old Faithful when you're just passing through; it's quite another to pay $15, stand in line outdoors for six hours, and discover that the geyser merely percolates during your 10 minutes.

Imagine this scene, a decade hence, in a regional office of the Interior Revenue Service.

We'd like a total refund of our 14-day Western public-land recreation fees. Our vacation was a disaster.

Could you explain your problems, so that I can get you the proper forms for you to fill out?

When we first pulled into Denver, we paid the Scenic View Fee, but the smog was so bad that we couldn't even see Lookout Mountain, let alone Mount Evans or Pike's Peak.

Sorry. We don't have any control over atmospheric conditions, but we have to charge anyway, just in case somebody gets a breath-taking glimpse of the Front Range.

Okay. We went camping after that, and it rained. When it wasn't rain, it was mud. We didn't even take our mountain bikes out, so why should we pay the trail fee?

But you could have used the trails, so we have to charge. I'm sorry, but we just don't have enough personnel to examine your tires on entry and exit and then calculate an appropriate trail mileage charge based on wear.

Dad, tell 'em about the missing marmot.

Right. The campground brochure said we'd see these furry creatures called marmots and not to feed them. Our little Sally looked and looked, but she never saw even one.

Wrong time of year. You can't expect a bunch of trained woodchucks.

For $160 a day for our family, damn right I expect it. Kids, we're going to Disneyland next year. Might cost a little more, but at least Mickey always shows up on time.

So our public lands will be managed somewhat differently as they become competitive recreation-based federal revenue centers. But it probably won't do any more damage than logging, mining and grazing.


< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1993 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >