CAMPING ON GOVERNMENT (OUR) LAND

[boydrkb]

Escapees News Bulletin
by Jim Koca, Advocacy Director

As some Escapees are aware, a bill has been introduced in the United States Congress, HB 5204, entitled The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014, which will allow fees to be collected for most of the "public land" that is controlled by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. If the bill passes, it would allow the Federal Government to charge fees for any activity on land that we presently have access to for free. Fees could include a permit fee, day use fee, or a special use fee. There is the possibility that the bill could be attached to an appropriation bill, which would allow the bill to pass without public comment or debate.

It is time now to get involved and contact your congressman and senators where you have your domicile and let them know that HB 5204 should be defeated. In the past, public lands have been turned over to concessionaires that allowed them to charge fees or to refuse to give discounts for entering the federal lands. This bill may not pass, but don't take a chance and let the other members contact their congressman or senators. It only takes a few minutes to let the representatives that we elected know how we feel.

To find your congressman, you can go to http://www.house.gov, and for senators, you can go to http://www.senate.gov.

If you would like to review the bill yourself:
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5204/text

[jplante4]

If the fees would actually go to maintenance of the land and access roads, I would have no problem paying a nominal fee. However, we all know that money collected in user fees will go to hire some Senator's brother-in-law to a no show job in the BLM, which he will hold for 20 years, then retire with a full pension. Then he will buy a motor home and pull into the space next to you, shoot a short wave antenna into a tree and make the short wave radio squeal all night and keep you awake.

Say FNW to user fees.

[The_Texan]

NJRVer wrote:
Maybe if people like Bundy who PROFIT from the land would pay their bill, then regular sightseers wouldn't have to.

Sorry, but for you easterners, Bundy did pay his bill EVERY year for decades, to the actual owners of the lands, Clark County Nevada.

[boydrkb]

NJRVer, you got a point there but don't stop at Bundy. Even the legit ranchers are living off the dole with their ridiculously cheap range-rent that is tantamount to no more than beef farming subsidy...Right, you and I pay, via Uncle Sugar, for the cattle to eat on our land that we will pay taxes on, once again, when we purchase it at the super market. $ talks and BS walks. Way too complicated for this old dog to understand.

[westend]

If it's truly "our land", we should have unlimited access and not have to pay a fee to use it. The Feds take in big money on leases and rights to "our land" for various natural resource harvesting, already. Those $$$ are much greater than any user fee will ever bring to the coffers.

Doe anyone remember when President GW Bush stated that, "the Iraqi oil was owned by the Iraqi people"? I am still waiting for my US oil dividend checks to start appearing.

[boydrkb]

Respectfully, Water-Bug, I spend my winters on BLM lands that are NOT maintained by our government. Not one smiggin of a two dollar doughnut is, or has ever been, spent on maintenance where I go. Should I see improvements, then yes, I'd expect to pay. We, you and I, already pay taxes. The last time I looked it was in excess of 30% out of every buck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining (too much) but I do not think we need more taxation, we need better use of the taxes we are already paying.

[NJRVer]

Maybe if people like Bundy who PROFIT from the land would pay their bill, then regular sightseers wouldn't have to.

[Water-Bug]

Sorry, but the boondocks are maintained. Do you think that the people who put out forest fires work for free? Do you think that the people who rescue hikers and climbers work for free? I'd bet dollars to donuts (it use to be a good bet) that a he** of a lot more is spent on fire fighting and search and rescue than will ever be collected in user's fees. Sorry but "if you use you pay" is fine with me.

[boydrkb]

BB TX A usage fee imposed for a rutted dirt road, miles off grid with no amenities, purely because it's owned by BLM (Not Maintained) seems like taxation without representation to me. I'm all for paying when services are rendered but this is not what we are talking about here. Maybe it's my libertarian leaning but I feel this is OUR land and we are already paying for dues in all of the other taxes we render to our government.

[teddychamp]

McKinney, National and State parks are maintained and cleaned and deserve a fee. Public lands are not. How much of your rights are you willing to give up little by little with unfair taxing so that our Government can piss more of our money away.???

[The_Texan]

Thanks for the heads up. I just emailed our congress critter and asked him to provide his position on the bill.

[BB_TX]

Personally I have no problem with charging a usage fee for those who actually use the land. Only a very small percentage of the population actually does. No different than the national and state parks.