<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico" />
<title>There's a RAT in the Appropriations Bill </title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<link media="screen" title="default" href="/styles2.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link media="screen" title="print" href="/stylesprint2.css" rel="alternate stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link media="print" title="print" href="/stylesprint2.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
</head>
<body>
<!--#include virtual="/inserts/header.htm" -->
<div id="container">
  <div id="maincontent">      
	<div id="text" style="font-size:16px"> 
            <h1>There's a RAT in the Appropriations Bill </h1>
            <div id="byline"><!--#include virtual="/inserts/gizmos.htm" -->
					   <p><br />
By Jeff Milchen<br />
Published
December 22, 2004</p>
					   <div class="clearboth"> </div> 
      </div>	                        
      <h5><strong><br />
        Editor's Note</strong>: This article was first written for <a href="http://www.hcn.org/opinion.jsp" target="_blank">Writers
        on the Range</a>, the wire service of High County News. This edit varies slightly from the original.<a href="http://www.hcn.org/opinion.jsp" target="_blank"></a></h5>
      <p>   Would you still call your town library "public" if a private corporation
   was allowed to manage the books your taxes paid for, then charged you a fee
   to borrow them? Thanks to a provision slipped into the latest federal spending
   bill, we may soon ask that question about our public lands. </p>
      <p>Just hours before the vote on a $388 billion, 3000-plus page spending
        bill, Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) inserted a
        rider -- meaning no debate or vote is possible on the item -- authorizing
        five federal agencies to create and extend recreation access fees on
        most public lands for the next decade. </p>
      <p>The sleazy tactic avoided an unwinnable vote on a wildly unpopular program.
        Now access fees can be collected on 600 million acres of our public land
        -- an area six times the size of Montana . </p>
      <p>These fees are more than a nuisance tax; they undermine the very idea
        of these lands as public. By expanding opportunities for private profit,
        while requiring land managers to provide human-made "improvements" or
        service to justify charging a fee, the law could accelerate rapidly the
        commercialization of our legacy. </p>
      <p>Until 1996, charging access fees was expressly prohibited on most federal
        land, with the exception of National Parks and developed boating or campground
        facilities. But during the 1990s, Congress slashed funding for federal
        lands upkeep, creating a budget "crisis" rife with opportunity for groups
        like the American Recreation Coalition -- a consortium of advocacy groups
        and corporations which profit from operating campgrounds, concessions
        and motorized recreation equipment. The ARC lobbied intensively for "public-private
        partnerships" and touted user fees as a funding source. </p>
      <p>After Rep. Regula first failed to pass the recreation tax in the House
        in 1996, he inserted a rider into the appropriations bill, where fees
        became law with virtually no public awareness. Begun as a two-year test
        at a limited number of sites, the program widely known as "Fee Demo" was
        extended via the rider tactic several more times. The latest rider would
        remove most limits and make visiting your public land without paying
        a required fee a crime, punishable by up to six months in prison or a
        $5,000 fine. </p>
      <p>Critics like Scott Silver of Wild Wilderness say it's time 
        to name the fees honestly as Recreation Access Taxes, or RATs. </p>
      <p>Until now, the tax's uncertain future limited exploitation of public
        lands, but with the decade-long guarantee of RATs, the recreation industry
        will push aggressively to exploit new profit opportunities. Already,
        federal documents raise the possibility of new marinas, hotels, and even
        theme parks. Public lands managers now dependent on user fees will be
        put in a bind: the fees, touted as a supplement to existing spending,
        merely enable further cuts in appropriated funds. <strong></strong></p>
      <p>The Forest Service reported $39 million in 2003 Fee Demo revenue and
        claim 80 percent of funds go to improve conditions where they're collected.
        Those claims are contradicted by the General Accounting Office, which
        documented the new bureaucracy for collection, enforcement and commissions
        as consuming about half of all revenue. </p>
      <p>Paying $5 to hike may not burden everyone, but the fees are demonstrably
        exclusive. Almost one quarter of families with incomes under $30,000
        said they were deterred from using fee areas, according to the Forest
        Service's own survey. </p>
      <p>The greater threat, however, is removing the limits to commercialism
        that have kept much public land an oasis for human enjoyment and protected
        habitat for thousands of species. According to the latest available data,
        taxpayers fork over almost half a billion dollars annually to subsidize
        Forest Service logging operations. The recreation industry recognizes
        similar opportunities to profit from taxpayers' subsidization. That library
        analogy becomes more vivid when you consider that hundreds of Forest
        Service campgrounds, built with our taxes, already are corporate-run,
        complete with a monopoly on reservations by Ticketmaster. </p>
      <p>Thankfully, the RAT rider by Regula and Stevens angered even many fellow
        Republicans, including many powerful western Senators, and a bill
        to reverse the RAT is likely in early 2005.</p>
      <p> Citizens who care for our
          shared treasure should speak out now and insist on reversing Fee Demo
          once Congress reconvenes. For if the access taxes continue for 10 years,
          our opportunity may be gone forever. By then, many people will have
        forgotten that our public lands are a birthright to enjoy and protect,
        not a commodity.</p>
      <p><em>The writer directs <a href="http://ReclaimDemocracy.org%20">ReclaimDemocracy.org </a></em></p>
      <h5><span class="arial"><br />
        </span>For a more detailed article on the problems
        with recreation access taxes, see <a href="privatize_public_lands.html"><em>Is
                This Land Our Land?</em></a></h5>
      <p>Where are the corporatizers heading? <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3332457">See this 2005 report</a> from the Houston Chronicle. </p>
      <h5>As bad as the RAT bill was, the Forest Service has gone beyond the law to further commercialize our public lands, as detailed by <a href="http://www.sespewild.org/fsfeeguidelinesanalysis.html" target="_blank">Western Slope No Fee Coalition</a>.</h5>
      <h5>For additional background information
                    and updates, please see the websites of <a href="http://www.wildwilderness.org"> Wild
                    Wilderness </a> or <a href="http://www.sespewild.org">Keep
                    the Sespe Wild</a>. </h5>
      <p>
        <!--#include virtual="/inserts/sendthispage.html" -->
      </p>
      <h5>&nbsp;      </h5>
              <!--#include virtual="/inserts/footer.htm" -->
    </div>
  </div>
  <!--#include virtual="/inserts/leftnavn.html" -->    
</div>
</body>
</html>